A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[kiki5711]

I'm starting to feel like an idiot and not so happy. BUT I still am never posting over there. I'll tell you one thing, there's something over there that brings out the "nasty" in me. I can't exactly say what it is. It's like I just want to slap someone, or pull their hair or something. It's better for my nerves not to visit there ever again anyway.

Anyhoo, Talking about the old days at RDF, one thing I'll always remember is CJ when he was a mod there. He was the most fair and kind person being a mod, that I've ever met in all my years on the net.

This reminds me of some ol saying. "people may not remember your name or how you look, but they'll always remember how you made them feel".

[Spinozasgalt]

I've read through the 34 pages of this thread and remain baffled as to what the issue is.

What seems to be the officer, problem?

[starr]

It seems that Rationalia Style TM reponses are only viewed as clever and funny and an attempt to diffuse drama when they are employed by clique members.

Obviously I am not in the clique because my posts are being perceived as passive aggressive and there seems to be an opinion by some members that I'm just here to upset people and cause trouble. That is not the intention behind my posts in this thread and I am sorry if I have upset anybody. I was under the impression that Ratz can laugh at themselves and that Ratz encourages free speech ... especially satire... although I'm now wondering whether satire directed towards the Rationalia Style TM is not encouraged.

I'm sure someone said here in this thread that whoever is here is Ratz now. I'm here aren't I? In fact, I've been a member here for over a year now.

I am also a member at RatSkep and it is my preferred forum of the two. That doesn't mean one is better and one is worse. They are just different.

There is a small number of very vocal Ratz members who seem to have not yet recovered from the 2008 RDF schism. This vocal minority of Ratz members seem to foster and encourage dissent about RatSkep here at Rationalia. They seem to want to keep fighting RDF and they see RatSkep as the next best thing.

I have nothing against anyone who felt/feels aggrieved by RatSkep moderation. I am disappointed by the rationalia members who have spent little, if any, time at RatSkep and yet seem to think they know how I operate, how the RatSkep staff operate, and how the forum operates.

You can keep making your snide remarks that 'people have to come here to complain about RatSkep because at RatSkep they do not listen to member complaints about moderation'. Those remarks are unfounded and untrue. I am not responding to issues about RatSkep moderation here at Rationalia because I respond to issues about RatSkep moderation at RatSkep. That is the appropriate venue and, contrary to some of the ill-informed opinions in this thread, the RatSkep staff do listen and we do care about the members and the forum. We also continually reassess our practices and 'take a good hard look at ourselves'. Yes our moderation style is different to the Rationalia style of moderation. You like it your way and we like it our way. My impression is that both styles, although different, are coming from an underlying desire to create and foster a strong community and to be fair to all members.

That was really cool.

It was almost posted in the Devogue Style TM

There is a small number of very vocal Ratz members who seem to have not yet recovered from the 2008 RDF schism.

You weren't there. You think you know what it was like and you think you know how we felt at the time (and subsequently), but you don't

You're right, I wasn't there and I don't know what it was like.

Charlou, Seraph, Lordpasternack (who hasn't even posted in this thread) and myself continued to post occasionally on RDF about perceived contradictions and irrationalities in the application of the FUA there - especially when they ran counter to the sub-title of the site ("Oasis of clear thinking"). You must understand that when people have strived by themselves over many years, and have been encouraged by people like Dawkins, to think as clearly and freely as possible about everything in life then they are going to speak out when they see blatant hypocrisy and obvious contradictions, especially when applied by Dawkins and his goons.

For the most part I have enjoyed Ratskep. I have over 800 posts there but I honestly think that the "Rational Skepticism" name is extremely misleading for the simple reason that the entire premise of the forum is open to rational skepticism. It is irrational that a person with a controversial point of view, something that perhaps the majority of members find repulsive, can be silenced because others take "offence", or they subjectively recoil because of their own personal sensibilities. What makes it even worse is that certain controversial and irrational opinions like Creationism are permitted, because its a kind of "chew toy" with which the general membership feels comfortable - there is a clear double standard built on subjective thinking. I know this because I used to think that way - I used to think that my sensibilities, my sense of what was "offensive" was precious and deserved special protection above and beyond someone else's freedom to potentially or inadvertently offend. After much vigorous debate here I came to the painful (and it was fucking painful, believe me, having your arse handed to you on a plate by a seventeen year old) realisation that I was wrong.

I accept that you strongly feel this way and you strongly believe that it is the best way to run a forum and that anything else is being irrational.

I don't think there is an objective 'best way' to run a forum. I think it's a matter of working with the community to figure out what works best for that community so that the majority of members are happy there. I don't think your way is irrational and I also don't think the RatSkep way is irrational. They just represent different preferences. One is not 'right' and the other is not 'wrong'.

So don't sit in your ivory tower and rip the piss out of a forum that doesn't stuff "bad" shit in to a cupboard, or sweep "distasteful" stuff under a carpet to "protect" its members, don't belittle a forum and its "style" that you abandoned when something better came along, and don't pretend that after dousing this thread with petrol that everyone is out to get you.

I don't think that anyone is out to get me (are they???? ).

I care very much about RatSkep and I also used to very much enjoy visiting Rationalia. I don't understand why 'Rationalia' seems to care so much about the FUA at RatSkep.
Why is it so important that it be changed to suit what you think is The Right Way to Run a Forum TM

I am hearing that RatSkep will not have a good hard look at itself (and that I personally will not have a good hard look at myself) and the evidence for this perception is based on my posting behaviour in a Rationalia thread ffs.

I've come over to Rationalia to discuss some issues I have with Rationalia. Where is the warmth and concern for a member of your forum who has issues with your forum and is expressing those issues on your forum? I have seen some good people that I care about personally attacked in this thread. I have seen the RatSkep staff attacked as a group in this thread. I have seen a good friend of mine ridiculed as acting 'insane' and 'beyond childish' because he decided to suspend his membership here. Is that being open and accepting criticism of your forum?

[devogue]

I accept that you strongly feel this way and you strongly believe that it is the best way to run a forum and that anything else is being irrational.

I don't think there is an objective 'best way' to run a forum. I think it's a matter of working with the community to figure out what works best for that community so that the majority of members are happy there. I don't think your way is irrational and I also don't think the RatSkep way is irrational. They just represent different preferences. One is not 'right' and the other is not 'wrong'.

I think you are missing the point.

If you are running a forum about gerbils or toilet systems then what you say is perfectly true. I am a member of another forum where swearing is forbidden - I think it's a silly rule but I go with the flow because nobody said anything about being rational when I signed up and I'm more interested in the subject being discussed than any "rights" I may or may not have. But you are running a forum called "Rational Skepticism", subtitled "Lifeboat for the rational mind", where it is forbidden to discuss certain subjects while holding a certain point of view or opinion. For example, if someone wanted to start a discussion about why they believe black people are intellectually inferior to white people they face not only having their thread deleted but also a possible ban from the forum under the current FUA. Such censorship in a forum which claims to champion the rational mind is just plain wrong.

And just to compound the problem further, it's perfectly okay for someone to come along and say "the dragon is considered to be a faint memory of the talking snake. Then they added powers too it." and escape censorship or moderator action even though what they are saying is clearly irrational nonsense.

[Pappa]

Okay Starr,

Explain to me how this got anything to do with Ratz.

:


HINT: Look at the big sign at the top of the page that says rationalia.com

I think she was joking a bit.

Actually... I was making a serious point in a humourous manner.

Yes please. I'm not being facetious, I'm just not entirely sure what you mean.

I mean that Ratz lurve drama. Ratz lurved anti-RDF drama sooooo much.... and now, to get their fix, they are on the methadone program of anti-RatSkep drama. It's a little bit pathetic really.

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

[klr]

...

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

FFS Pappa ... this is way over the line.

[devogue]

...

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

FFS Pappa ... this is way over the line.

[/Pappa unzips himself and Dev pops out]

[Twoflower]

Okay Starr,

Explain to me how this got anything to do with Ratz.

:


HINT: Look at the big sign at the top of the page that says rationalia.com

I think she was joking a bit.

Actually... I was making a serious point in a humourous manner.

Yes please. I'm not being facetious, I'm just not entirely sure what you mean.

I mean that Ratz lurve drama. Ratz lurved anti-RDF drama sooooo much.... and now, to get their fix, they are on the methadone program of anti-RatSkep drama. It's a little bit pathetic really.

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

Pappa has been warned for this post.

[Pappa]

...

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

FFS Pappa ... this is way over the line.

I know. I reported the popst myself and am expecting some staff action for it.

[devogue]

Okay Starr,

Explain to me how this got anything to do with Ratz.

:


HINT: Look at the big sign at the top of the page that says rationalia.com

I think she was joking a bit.

Actually... I was making a serious point in a humourous manner.

Yes please. I'm not being facetious, I'm just not entirely sure what you mean.

I mean that Ratz lurve drama. Ratz lurved anti-RDF drama sooooo much.... and now, to get their fix, they are on the methadone program of anti-RatSkep drama. It's a little bit pathetic really.

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

Pappa has been warned for this post.

I promise I'll not say another word about it, but I think a warning isn't enough.

[Twoflower]

He might get a 24 hour suspension, we are still discussing it.

[Tigger]

Okay Starr,

Explain to me how this got anything to do with Ratz.

:


HINT: Look at the big sign at the top of the page that says rationalia.com

I think she was joking a bit.

Actually... I was making a serious point in a humourous manner.

Yes please. I'm not being facetious, I'm just not entirely sure what you mean.

I mean that Ratz lurve drama. Ratz lurved anti-RDF drama sooooo much.... and now, to get their fix, they are on the methadone program of anti-RatSkep drama. It's a little bit pathetic really.

I think you should go fuck yourself you stupid fucking bitch. Kiss my Welsh arse and fuck of with your cuntish opinions. You´re so wrong it´s not even funny.

Pappa has been warned for this post.

I promise I'll not say another word about it, but I think a warning isn't enough.

Why? What else has he done to move him further along on the scale of punitive measures?

[Spinozasgalt]

I don't know what on earth that was about, but I'll post what I was planning to.

The way people are claiming certain kinds of "censorship" are "wrong" in this thread strikes me as bizarre. If many of you are subjectivists or relativists, as you claim to be, you're not saying anything more significant than that you prefer one way over another. Yet you then go on to claim one way is more rational than the other. The point of a subjectivist account of normativity (at least the way many of you phrase it) is that isn't a domain of rationality. I'm sorry, but it just comes off as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

[Tigger]

I don't know what on earth that was about, but I'll post what I was planning to.

The way people are claiming certain kinds of "censorship" are "wrong" in this thread strikes me as bizarre. If many of you are subjectivists or relativists, as you claim to be, you're not saying anything more significant than that you prefer one way over another. Yet you then go on to claim one way is more rational than the other. The point of a subjectivist account of normativity (at least the way many of you phrase it) is that isn't a domain of rationality. I'm sorry, but it just comes off as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

And in English?

[Spinozasgalt]

I exhausted my english when I said "I don't know".