Mod Kirk

I did this on my own, without consulting the other mods. They can smack my hand if I'm out of line, but let me outline my reasoning.

I assent to your actions...

Nice recap!

Leaving it here for now...it managed to survive 107 pages in this forum :biglaugh:/>

Leaving it here for now

Misrepresenting what other posters say will be construed as against the house rules

Ad hominems are just poor, illogical arguments

Keep it on topic people!

Note the post at the top of this forum from a few years back: anyone may post here - Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists or anyone else who does not currently define themselves as Christian or as a bible literalist may post here

The doctrinal forum has and will continue to play host to a wide variety of opinions, doctrines and favorite theologians. Non-Christians, including atheists, agnostics, and Satanists (yeah, really) are welcome here.

That being said, please keep the discussions on-topic. While discussing the existence of God, God's motives, the origin or reliability of the bible or the relatives merits of various religions and philosophies is certainly appropriate, consider the context of your discussion. Does your contribution add to or derail/detract from the discussion at hand? The flip side of this is that non-Christians have every right to weigh in on these threads. While it may be your opinion that a Buddhist or an Atheist doesn't belong in an argument about the Trinity or Predestination or answered prayer, the position of this board is that anyone may participate.

Please, play nice!

A side discussion about the existence of God has been removed from this thread.

While threads questioning God and his motives are not out of place in the doctrinal forum, please don't derail doctrinal discussions with extraneous matters.

FYI:

The word "pedangta" confuses the filter, which turns the slang word for excrement into "dang".

Wherever you see the word "Penangta", it should be "Pedangta"

For the record, I didn't split this out into a new topic.

Just saying....

It's true...it was me

Congratulations on the weight loss as well as the divorce from Dominoes.

I'm sure I'd find something to do with my time if Grease Spot went away...but boy, would I miss this place.

It's a privelege assisting in the upkeep of this fine establishment.

Thanks!

Anyone who wants the thread closed is free to stop posting on it

A focused discussion of the "Kingdom" issue would be a distraction from the essence of this thread.

While it is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, it might be better suited to the doctrinal forum.

So, my suggestion is to take the "Kingdom Of Heaven/Kingdom Of God" example off the table and consider the many other errors in PFAL in a more collective sense.

(Such as Throughly/Thoroughly--- With this/Without this--- Four Crucified---lama vs, lmana--- and so on.)

In doing so, it becomes apparent that Mark's question is still valid.

Restating the question

If PFAL was given, by God, to VPW, by way of revelation, why would God allow it to contain so many blatant errors?

This question has been posed before.

Maybe it deserves its own thread, as it is peripheral to the snowstorm theme.

I have split off two of the KOG/KOH posts and started a new thread down in Doctrinal

The posts that follow the preceding remark about a mantle have been moved to a new thread. Enjoy!

3 of those mod names are people who are no longer active.

2 are people who either moderate the prayer forum only or handle technical details only

7 are placeholder names that the new mods got to choose from.

There are only 8 active mods

While I understand the points of those who think that there should not be a second screen name for moderators, I disagree that we should moderate under our primary handles.

Mainly because of the anitipathy towards moderators here at GSC. Using the mod handle allows us to participate in discussions without bringing the moderator baggage. With the adversarial attitude that many here have toward moderators, could a moderator post on a hot topic without the suspicion that he or she would edit out opposing views?

With the utter contempt with which many of you treat the mods, why would any of us "unmask"?

ohmygod

you're the one who needs to lighten up, modcow

That, of course, is your opinion.

And why don't some of you take yourselves less seriously?

Well, I take my responsibility seriously, since I believe in the mission of Grease Spot

And I third the motion!!!!!!!!

modcow, i wasn't saying this because you said to cut them some slack

I was not replying to your post at all mod cow.

Well, excathedra followed my post using similar language. I believe any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that it was a response to my remark; vickles "thirded" the motion, indicating a response to my remark as well.

like I said, some of the moderating needs a little lightening up.

Maybe it does, the newbies are learning and the veterans aren't perfect either.

Hey, I really don't understand why my post was deleted.

It was explained in a PM.

I don't know why you would think the moderators would run away by something so simple.

Because I have seen it before, time after time over the last five years. Most people get sick and tired of doing a volunteer job and getting nothing but grief

If someone thinks someone said something to hurt their feelings wha wha. Its like kindergarten all over again.

I was stating that why does everyone have to whine about how their feelings are getting hurt...You are never going to make everyone happy and you are going to have the same whiners whining... wha wha cry in my bottle sort of thing.

Who is it that's "whining" about their feelings being hurt?

Well, Tom, I will probably get kicked off of here but I am in trouble....lol when am I not....but

What made you say that?

A few posts up, I had made a comment that was somewhat sarcastic, which I deleted, but not before a few posters commented on it.

I deleted the comments, since they made no sense out of context.

Also deleted was a comment by pawtucket that made no sense out of context since it was a response to one of the responses that I had deleted.

I PM'd those whose posters I deleted explaining my actions. One poster PM'd me back with his opinion of my actions, the other two chose to continue to discuss the matter on this thread.

So, I put it all back in order to preserve some semblance of context.

A side note to the revised rules:

One of the issues that came up during the Rules Committee discussions was the need for more moderators to help lighten the load on the small group that we had previously, eight posters volunteered.

Now these are all posters who have been moderating for less than a month and are doing their best to do a tough job. Every single one of them are long-time posters who come from a variety of points of view.

Why don't some of you cut them some slack?

The posts discussing libel were moved to the "libel" thread

The discussion on "Are Unitarian Christians Actually Muslims" has been assigned its own thread, which can be found in the doctrinal forum

The portion of this discussion relating to the definition of a cult has been split off to a new topic.

What I do know is a Moderator spoke up on the one thread where it was politely asked that no labels and name calling be used, and esentially said there was no point to discussing the issue, no point in having started the thread. Yet the moderators have been by and large silent regarding most of the cruelty and calling out that has gone on through 5 threads now.

I was the moderator that is being referred to in the initial post on this thread. Below is what I posted.

No matter how one defines personal attacks, there's the problem of enforcing that definition.

Does name calling get left up? Undoubtedly. One of the issues is the small number of moderators, and all of them have limited time to devote to moderating.

About two months ago I checked GSC from work and noticed a thread devolving into name calling. I spent more time than my employer would have liked editing and deleting posts, had posters accuse me of "tampering" with their posts, had threads started about why the moderating was happening and finally ended up suspending two posters, one who I have broken bread with and consider a friend.

Then I came home and spent more time than my spouse liked explaining it all.

I can't do that every day and neither can any of the other mods.

The interpretation of what a personal attack is can be somewhat ambiguous. I don't think that will change if we attempt to get more explicit about "the rules".

I did not say, "essentially" or otherwise that there is no point discussing the issue, my point is that the job is already too big for the moderators that we have, and that we can write a bunch of new rules and define to the point that no one can possibly misunderstand and we would still be hampered by the limitations imposed by the small number of moderators and their finite amount of time.

As to "being silent", have you noticed that closing down threads almost invariably results in a new thread, often titled something like "Why Was XYZ Thread Shut Down?" or "Where's Joe Blow?"? It's like cutting off one of Hydra's heads!

I think discussing what defines a personal attack is a valid topic. Some people just don't know.

I'm done.

Flame away.

Or don't...

No matter how one defines personal attacks, there's the problem of enforcing that definition.

Does name calling get left up? Undoubtedly. One of the issues is the small number of moderators, and all of them have limited time to devote to moderating.

About two months ago I became checked GSc from work and noticed a thread devolving into name calling. I spent more time than my employer would have liked editing and deleting posts, had posters accuse me of "tampering" with their posts, had threads started about why the moderating was happening and finally ended up suspending two posters, one who I have broken bread with and consider a friend.

Then I came home and spent more time than my spouse liked explaining it all.

I can't do that every day and neither can any of the other mods.

The interpretation of what a personal attack is can be somewhat ambiguous. I don't think that will change if we attempt to get more explicit about "the rules".

It would be nice if Bumpy could defend himself here publicly, but he can't, he's been barred.

Suspensions and moderation are not done by vote. Never have been. You were an adult enough to accept your suspension with good grace, now you are enabling someone who can't or won't.

For instance, a few posts back, Paw said that Bumpy had been suspended "numerous times" which according to Bumpy is completely untrue, non-factual, to him, a fabrication.

I can recall several instances when Bumpy was suspended, once in the recent past. During this latest time he re-registered as "Grumpy". In addition to suspensions Bumpy has received several warnings from me in the recent past to stop the name calling and personal attacks.

As a matter of fact, I remember him being suspended only one time, not numerous times. So what's up with that?

What's up is that you are not aware of every action that is taken on this board.

Oh, and yeah, I forgot one more thing about his suspension notice:

"This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.".

Gee thanks. Kinda like an automated response form letter from someone who you supported faithfully as a Way Corps Sponsor: "And by the way, don't bother writing me again and asking why I don't want any more letters from you....

When a poster is suspended the moderator is asked to check whether an email should be sent, if "yes", then the template that you copied is sent; the moderator can type in the date and time or put in an additional message. The automated part refers to the suspension coming off automatically without the poster having to ask to be unsuspended or the moderator having to take any further action. It does not preclude communication by the suspended poster.