Well now you're being off topic by discussing the off topic nature of the off topic topic.

I just go with the flow these days.

Well, now that we're in the "Random" thread, I guess it's literally impossible to be off topic.

Very unfortunate that one can no longer oppose a moderation decision in the relevant thread but rampant insults for years of someone who has been on ignore is tolerated without comment.

If Aaron is in any way violating the 2+2 ToS, then report him. If he's not violating the ToS, then everything's kewl.

"Move along people, there's nothing to see here."

It's a little less clear than that. There isn't any set of enumerated rules for this subforum. The last "rules" for this forum were updated by a moderator who is no longer here in 2011, updated from 2005 rules. There are comments there against "acrimonious posts" against those who don't wish them, not quoting to "ridicule" people, and not harassing people as "others should not suffer the derailment of a thread while you chase another poster."

Clearly these rules are not relevant today. So what IS relevant? Well, it is whatever Original Position unilaterally decides. For reasons that entirely escape me, he has decided that huge categories of acrimonious and ridiculing posts are acceptable. Take something like this recent post by Aaron:

This sort of insult-by-analogy is part and parcel's of Aaron's style as he relentlessly attacks Mightyboosh for years. But I would be shocked if Original Position raised a finger against such a thing if I reported it. This is what allows Aaron's bizarre, disgusting, hilarious, and absolutely unique pattern where he has stalked Mightyboosh for years lobbing hundreds of posts fulled of condescension, insults and disdain at him to continue.

Off-topic posts about other posters do not typically lead to fruitful conversations and often end up drowning out the original conversation. Since that conversation about free will and god is still ongoing, moving the discussion about Aaron here is an attempt to keep it on track. As stated in the RGT Rules, moderation of derailments will be judged by moderator discretion.

As for the substance of your complaint, sure, Aaron has a long history of criticizing Mightyboosh, often in an uncharitable and unkind way. But I don't see anything objectionable in his recent posts in the free will or the "is belief in gods irrational" threads, nor have you pointed to anything specific other than your finding it bizarre that Aaron replies to someone who has him on ignore. Obviously that is allowed.

Your memory is faulty here. I'm not super anal about it (which is why I left your prior posts in that thread), but I've never viewed in-thread as the best place to discuss moderation decisions. As usual, I encourage people to PM me if they disagree about a decision. I know you've done this in the past on this topic, and remain unsatisfied, so I don't mind you making your complaints public here. But I don't see any reason to think your own desire to discuss Aaron should supercede the ongoing discussion about God and free will.

In the last two posts in the free will thread Aaron first compares Mightyboosh to a screaming anti-vaxxer and follows up by saying he is often willfully ignorant. Since you are - strangely, given their clear obsolescence - quoting from the outdated rules, I will do the same. These quotes do not "respect the tone" Mightyboosh sets. He is not "looking for a fight" with Aaron. He is not desiring an "acrimonious thread". He doesn't ask for these personal attacks chalked full of negative insinuations about him. I suppose you get a pass on the "only" technicality on trolling a poster since Aaron's MO has always been to mix an intellectual take down with his condescension and insults, but it is such a superficial escape I'm surprised you'd fall for it. The harassment clause wasn't written for such a bizarre and unique situation as this one, but I'd be hard pressed not to think that is relevant here too.

It shouldn't be hard to realize there are years of example like this, to which you have done nothing.

Obviously you allow it. But it isn't remotely clear that it should be allowed. Your most basic and fundamental responsibility as a moderator is to create a space that is safe for its participants. Criticism of his ideas and even mild condescension is part of being in a forum, everyone should expect this, but when somebody explicitly decides that a person's insults have gone too far they should have a mechanism to protect themselves from this. Thankfully, we have the ignore mechanism which in every other instance I've ever heard of solves the problem. But not for Aaron. It was insufficient. The abusive behaviour towards Mightyboosh that led to him being ignore listed continued unabated, affecting many conversations that Mightyboosh have. To he credit, he is a great sport about it, but he shouldn't have to be a great sport about it, nor should he have the conversations he always conducts with a respectful tone poisoned by this blocked third party interjecting himself.

It would be nice if Aaron should have even a modicum of respect and just broadly left Mightyboosh alone. Clearly that won't happen, as disrespectful as it undeniably is. Shame on him. However, the responsibility then falls on you to ensure a community that at least attempts to respect its members. Instead of considering context, you insist on viewing posts in isolation. Instead of heightened attention and vigilance given the broader context, you've ignored and often even whitewashed the overwhelming majority of the insults and condescension that Aaron has lobbed at him. You've even failed to request Aaron to refrain from his behaviour not as an official threat of moderation, but from your role as a respected elder of the community. It is an abdication of your basic responsibility as a moderator.

(edit: Note that you might have missed the above post due to concurrent timing. I disagree - strongly - with your characterization of off topic posts but whatever not as important.)

Well, if this forum is a wild-west anything-goes anarchy, then anyone who doesn't like to be insulted and ridiculed needs to not post in this forum.

The RGT Rules are more or less the same as what we started with in 2009 (the 2011 edits were to add the HC Thread rules). I'm naturally conservative about rule changes, so I've relied more on being explicit in PMs about how I interpret these rules when I make moderation decisions rather than making changes to the rules themselves. Contrary to what you say here though, these rules are still relevant to how to post in RGT.

To clarify on the specific points you raise here, it is still the case that quoting someone with the sole purpose of ridiculing them is prohibited. I do try to keep acrimonious posts directed towards those who are not being acrimonious within bounds, but I'll admit that it is hard to moderate for tone and I'm sure I fail at doing a good job of this at times. My bias is generally against moderating posts that make on-topic points (as Aaron usually does) and this probably has caused me to sometimes allow posts that go over this line into acrimony that should be prohibited.

I guess I missed your highlighting this passage as a specific complaint. Yeah, comparing someone's position pejoratively to that of an anti-vaxxer is definitely allowed. People often morally disapprove of other people's beliefs about religion, and are allowed to say as much, including comparing it to other beliefs of which they also disapprove.

Of course, nobody "likes" to be insulted. I should have said "anyone who can't tolerate being insulted and ridiculed needs to not post in this forum."

I'm going to give a sec in case you just haven't had a chance yet on the other post before responding.

Thanks, getting to it

But it isn't.

If someone is claiming something that goes against the broadly accepted consensus of experts based on some sort of personal perception, it is a fair and accurate characterization. That it is perceived as insulting by you is a refection of the absurdity of the position that has been staked out.

Here is the unquoted portion:

I'm drawing a clear and direct parallel between the two situations. If you disagree, you may do so. Feel free to raise a substantive objection to the comparison.

So, in the post you are objecting to here, Aaron W points out, correctly, that few philosophers any longer accept the logical problem of evil as sound and claims that Mightyboosh's continuing to use it is akin to "screaming anti-vaxxers" who also reject the scientific community's rejection of the link between vaccination and autism. My own preference in cases like this is to just state the arguments used by these philosophers rather than appeal to their authority (as I did in-thread), but the analogy here between rejecting the authority of scientists on scientific topics and rejecting the authority of philosophers on philosophical topics seems defensible to me. The tone isn't particularly friendly, but it doesn't seem that unfriendly either, and I don't see a reasonable standard on which I should bar such comparisons.

You also object to Aaron saying that Mightyboosh's posts often come across as "willfully ignorant." I think this is a misread on Aaron's part; what he reads as willful ignorance is really just an application of this:

I think Mightyboosh posting in this more provisional manner is actually quite useful in sparking discussion and I appreciate him being willing to argue for commonly held positions that are imo clearly wrong, as it gives other posters an opportunity to say why they think those views are wrong.

That being said, in this post Aaron was describing the grounds on which he, rightfully or not, responds unpleasantly to other posters. He highlighted willful ignorance as the primary reason, and claimed that Mightyboosh's writing sometimes exhibit this characteristic. I don't outright ban negative characterizations of other people's posting (although such posts can easily cross the line into prohibited personal attacks or harassment). Since this post was more or less within the flow of the conversation (a conversation initiated by you), and based on a reasonable view of intellectual humility, I don't think it should be deleted. Aaron is allowed to defend his own posting.

I disagree with your description of "only" as a technicality. This forum has always allowed strongly negative characterizations of other people's viewpoints - predating my own tenure as moderator. The primary direct limit I place on these kinds of characterizations is whether they are reasonably backed up by a defense of that characterization and relevant to the larger topic being discussed. It is an explicit part of many religious group's theology that those with different views are evil sinners that deserve condemnation and punishment for their views or actions. I don't see how to have a frank discussion about religion without allowing people to make statements of this sort. My hope is that people can do so in a way that is still respectful towards others and I try to model that in my own posting. But I'm not going to ban posts just because they aren't - that is too high a bar.

Two points:

1) I disagree with your characterization of my primary responsibility as providing a safe place for participants. I view the primary function of RGT as providing an open forum for discussion of religiously-themed topics. The rules against harassment and personal attacks are justified because they make discussion more difficult, not because they can be emotionally damaging to some participants. Challenging and criticizing people's religious views and identity can be emotionally damaging even when not harassing or personal. Fundamentally, I don't view discussion of religion as a "safe" topic (assuming some base level of diversity such as we have in RGT). Thus, I think it counterproductive to use emotional safety as a standard in moderation here.

2) I agree that Aaron continuing to respond to a poster who has put him on ignore is unusual, but as long as he continues to post consistently with the RGT rules, I don't see a good reason for it to be barred. How could I justify a decision barring one poster from responding to another poster? Mightyboosh's decision to put Aaron on ignore was a wise one, but there is no corresponding duty on Aaron to also ignore Mightyboosh. Imo, the current equilibrium seems best in many ways: it is seemingly sustainable on both MB and Aaron's part and it gives us the benefit of reading Aaron's often useful criticisms of Mightyboosh's views while not forcing MB to read the sometimes uncharitable form in which they are put.

It is true that I avoid making "body of work" style moderation decisions. I use people's past history as a guide to understanding their posts, eg I'm more likely to read someone with a history of trolling as being insincere rather than, say, someone like tame_deuces. But any specific moderation decision will be based on specific posts. My main consideration in adhering to this policy is that I assume that I, like everyone else, am subject to my own biases against people or ideas. I think that moderation decisions based on broader context or a poster's body of work are generally too susceptible to this kind of bias.

I like Aaron W as a poster. He consistently responds with thoughtful content that challenges people's assumptions in fruitful ways. He is more willing than any other reg here to talk with newcomers or go over topics we've already discussed in the past. I also think his perspective is particularly valuable in RGT, as so many of the regs are non-religious atheists. I also think there is value in a more caustic approach to discussion than I use. That being said, as I've said before, I think his judgement regarding Mightyboosh is generally wrong and so his manner of posting towards him is generally unwarranted. But this is my view as an "elder" of the RGT community, not as a moderator. I view it as unfair and typically an abuse of moderator power to use these kinds of judgements for more than interpretation and so will consciously try to abstract them away when making moderation decisions.

Finally, I'm not going over this in detail, as it is private, but you make a lot of assumptions about my interactions with Aaron here that are unwarranted.

A ridiculous whitewash. In a mixed order:

1) Repeating the rules you endorse:
His insults are clearly acrimonious, while Mightyboosh's are not. Mightyboosh is clearly not looking for a fight. Mightyboosh put Aaron on ignore, it is clear that Aaron is NOT "respecting the tone" set by Mightyboosh.

2) While I certainly agree that Aaron is wrong about his judgement, that isn't the problem in and of itself. Let's assume Mightyboosh truly was the willfully ignorant guy Aaron imagines. That would not warrant disrespecting the tone he sets. That would not warrant insulting him. That would not warrant this bizarre behaviour of extensive acrimonious engagement for years despite being ignore-listed. Is this really the strongest condemnation you can muster?

3)It is a fundamental mistake to insist on every moderation decision being entirely in isolation without any regard for context. Abuse and harassment typically don't occur in isolated incidents, it typically has patterns of behavior. Here too, we have a pattern of acrimonious behaviour that disrespects the tone established by Mightyboosh. I care far more about that than any particular apologetics to the most recent two posts in the first thread I've read in months. They fit the pattern regardless of whether they "in a vacuum" cross your rather high bar.

4) Yes, I think this is your core mistake. Aaron's MO is not insults alone. The personal attacks whether against a noob, Mightyboosh, me, whoever, typically come paired with "on-topic" attacks on the content of their posts too. What this has allowed is for years of insults that clearly disrespect the tone set by victim, that clearly are acrimonious, to go get off free. Likewise, while "screaming anti-vaxxer" functions as an insult in the same way "idiot" does, if there is a connection to the content then you can't even muster up calling it unfriendly. Besides, the very concept of "on-topic" is rather more tenuous when there isn't actually a discussion occurring between the two of them, a factor you ignore entirely in your analysis.

By the way, while I'll admit to opening the opportunity for Aaron to insult Mightyboosh again, and maybe with some handwaving that eliminates the insult as being an insult, he's used it before and not just in response to my bringing, and not even just to Mightboosh, but in fact the "new members" you applaud his efforts to engage with:
5) Duty? Perhaps not. But it is extremely disrespectful. As a community, we can condemn poor etiquette without necessarily enforcing it with bans when violated.


And a final triviality:
Oh sure, we are talking past each other here I think. A space safe from evident harrassment and abuse, I wasn't aiming to suggest the purpose of that was necessarily about emotional damage.

Your hope of people being "respectful to others" is admirable, but there is more to leadership than just modelling good behaviour.

That's what I was trying ot find out.

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

One can't be thin-skinned if they post in a public forum about religion.

Mightyboosh has blocked Aaron's posts, so it seems to me "no harm, no foul."

As an open-air preacher, I am the recipient of all manner of verbal abuse on occasion. And I'm cool with that. It comes with the territory when the topic is religion. What Aaron says to Mightyboosh is about 5% as bad as what I sometimes get when preaching in public, where there is no moderator to give me a "safe" zone.

To be clear, mightyboosh has been largely without complaints. Far from a thin skin, to his credit he appears to have a remarkably thick one.

If this is the case, then what's it to you? You feel bad for something between two people that doesn't involve you at any level, and for which there's no actual problem, and so you're swooping in to rescue someone who doesn't need rescuing and doesn't appear to want it.

Ironically, bringing attention to this as you are is only serving to make a problem where there is none. I post in a manner that fits in completely in the context of the thread and does not bring attention to the fact that I'm being ignored by MB. Indeed, it's pretty much an invisible thing. This is attested to by the fact that you literally had to *ASK* whether it was still the case before engaging in your crusade.

I would like to nominate an undertitle for uke: "Impotent thought police".

It is your behaviour - not your thoughts- that is disrespectful. The problem exists regardless of whether Mightyboosh makes a big deal out of. He has taken a really ****ty situation caused entirely by you and actually had a lot of class dealing with it. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem or that I shouldn't identify it. You are acting shamefully, but it is clear there is no changing your behaviour.

Fair enough: "Impotent behavior police"

The problem is what, exactly? That you feel bad about something that nobody else feels bad about, and that makes you feel extra bad? Did you make some sort of New Years' resolution that you would be defender of those who don't need defending?

If this is the case, then what are you actually attempting to accomplish? A sense of superiority for having taken on the noble cause of defending your sense of "we should all play nice" even though you know it's useless?

"The very concept of being on-topic" is clearly measured by engagement and not content. Indeed, if one writes a commentary of a book, it's nearly off-topic by necessity because the book doesn't respond to the commentary. (It's tenuous at best.)

I'm quite amused by your writings. Please continue. (Or don't. Either way is good with me.)

Am I making an unwarranted claim that uke is being stupid by raising stupid objections, or is it factually accurate?