Just Curious on the political stance, Liberal/Conservative?

[Father Heathen]

@Truth7t7 is probably just looking for any bias. Even if there was, I don't really think it would matter. Doesn't any action the mods do have to be approved by other mods, to eliminate bias?

They should understand that political or religious views of the moderators hold no bearing on the rules (which aim for inclusion, impartiality, and civility) or how they enforce them. A mod who bans users or censors posts simply because they disagree with them would be an abuse of authority regardless of their political/religious affiliation.

 

[Truth7t7]

Deleted

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

probably preferable to having a forum owner who realy cares about any particular agenda... at least for anyone who wants to participate but doesn't agree with it. Ever tried to participate on a site like that? The biases of the "true believers" against those of any degree of disagreement, or even just those who ask awkward questions, can be vicious and toxic.

 

[Truth7t7]

probably preferable to having a forum owner who realy cares about any particular agenda... at least for anyone who wants to participate but doesn't agree with it. Ever tried to participate on a site like that? The biases of the "true believers" against those of any degree of disagreement, or even just those who ask awkward questions, can be vicious and toxic.

You mean a one sided bias like that seen below?

Debater Slayer Said:

Hello and welcome to the forum.

This forum has several admins, not just one. Also, the owner hasn't logged on in a long time. The day-to-day staff is almost entirely comprised of volunteers.

With that clarified, I'm not aware of any active admins who oppose any of the three things you mentioned, myself included. To be more specific--and speaking for myself, since I can't speak for anyone else--this is what I believe:

1) Homosexuality: I don't oppose or accept it any more than I oppose or accept ice cream or carrot cake. It is a strictly personal preference that people are born with, and since it is not harmful, I see no reason to oppose it. I'm not homosexual myself, however.

2) Same-sex marriage: I'm absolutely for marriage equality. Again, since homosexuality is not harmful, I see no reason at all to oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

3) Abortion: I believe women should have the freedom to have abortions and that, before the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, we are talking about a group of cells, not a living, breathing person with full rights.

I have to note that your questions are very limited and monochromatic in how they distinguish a liberal from a conservative, and vice versa. Aside from the fact that not all liberals or conservatives hold the same opinions about these three specific subjects, there is far more to being on either end of the political and social spectrum than just these three issues. I lean right on a lot of issues, myself, to the point where I definitely don't classify myself as a liberal, but I'm guessing my answers to your questions could lead you to assume that I'm one.

I hope you enjoy the forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You mean a one sided bias like that seen below?

Debater Slayer Said: ...

Good grief.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You mean a one sided bias like that seen below?

You have been here for only one day, with seven messages, and you are already declaring the forum to have a "one-sided bias"?

Aside from the evident hastiness in your statement, I wonder why you, as such a new member, would seek to paint the forum and moderation in a negative light so quickly. It seems strange, to say the least.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you sure, because America's political center is to the right of what the rest of the developed world considers the center. For example, a lot of Europe's moderate conservatives would be considered "liberal" by American standards.

Yeah, clumsy wording by me.
Let me try it another way. I'd consider myself almost a centrist. Historically slightly left.

That appears to put me squarely in a 'liberal' camp on a lot of hot button issues in American terms, but I don't consider myself a liberal particularly.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You mean a one sided bias like that seen below?

Debater Slayer Said:

Hello and welcome to the forum.

This forum has several admins, not just one. Also, the owner hasn't logged on in a long time. The day-to-day staff is almost entirely comprised of volunteers.

With that clarified, I'm not aware of any active admins who oppose any of the three things you mentioned, myself included. To be more specific--and speaking for myself, since I can't speak for anyone else--this is what I believe:

1) Homosexuality: I don't oppose or accept it any more than I oppose or accept ice cream or carrot cake. It is a strictly personal preference that people are born with, and since it is not harmful, I see no reason to oppose it. I'm not homosexual myself, however.

2) Same-sex marriage: I'm absolutely for marriage equality. Again, since homosexuality is not harmful, I see no reason at all to oppose equal rights for homosexuals.

3) Abortion: I believe women should have the freedom to have abortions and that, before the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, we are talking about a group of cells, not a living, breathing person with full rights.

I have to note that your questions are very limited and monochromatic in how they distinguish a liberal from a conservative, and vice versa. Aside from the fact that not all liberals or conservatives hold the same opinions about these three specific subjects, there is far more to being on either end of the political and social spectrum than just these three issues. I lean right on a lot of issues, myself, to the point where I definitely don't classify myself as a liberal, but I'm guessing my answers to your questions could lead you to assume that I'm one.

I hope you enjoy the forum.

Um, I fail to see how that's a bias. That's a personal opinion. Everyone has those. Bias would be if, in a moderation setting @Debater Slayer treated people who agree with his opinions differently to those who disagree.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah, clumsy wording by me.
Let me try it another way. I'd consider myself almost a centrist. Historically slightly left.

That appears to put me squarely in a 'liberal' camp on a lot of hot button issues in American terms, but I don't consider myself a liberal particularly.

It's crazy. I'm quite firmly right, I've even been called far right. But because I believe in evidence based policy, and point out hypocrisy, in the current climate, I'm regularly attacked from more ideological people on both sides.

 

[Truth7t7]

Um, I fail to see how that's a bias. That's a personal opinion. Everyone has those. Bias would be if, in a moderation setting @Debater Slayer treated people who agree with his opinions differently to those who disagree.

Bias in my "opinion" would be not having "One Admin/Mod on (Religious Forums)
That opposes homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion.

You can't claim there aren't any religious bible believing christians that don"t oppose the three items?

They just won't be found in the Mod team here, thats a no brainer don't ya think, sorta like going to a predetermined rainbow flag church?

Debater SlayerBorn-again Glompist
Staff MemberPremium Member
Hi, all,

In the last couple of months, certain people have PMed me about the status of conservative members on RF and expressed concerns regarding what they thought was an under-representation of conservative members on the forum.

First, I think clarifying the RF administration's stance on conservative members is important. We consider them a crucial element of fulfilling the forum's mission statement promoting fellowship and diversity. Imagine, for instance, the Political Debates forum without conservative members. It would be one-sided, one-dimensional, and uninteresting; the "Debates" in "Political Debates" would whither away, which is not what we want. Furthermore, conservative religious members add fundamental variety to the religious debates and discussions on this forum, enriching the diversity thereof.

Second, let's talk about the representation of conservative members on RF. If we define a conservative as "someone who respects and aims to preserve the status quo," we already have some conservatives on the staff. It is true, however, that the ratio of socially and politically conservative staff members to socially and politically liberal ones is on the low side. As a result, we are currently looking into adding more socially and politically conservative members to the staff.

 

[Rival]

Bias in my "opinion" would be not having "One Admin/Mod on (Religious Forums)
That opposes homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion.

You can't claim there aren't any religious bible believing christians that don"t oppose the three items?

They just won't be found in the Mod team here, thats a no brainer don't ya think, sorta like going to a predetermined rainbow flag church?

Debater SlayerBorn-again Glompist
Staff MemberPremium Member
Hi, all,

In the last couple of months, certain people have PMed me about the status of conservative members on RF and expressed concerns regarding what they thought was an under-representation of conservative members on the forum.

First, I think clarifying the RF administration's stance on conservative members is important. We consider them a crucial element of fulfilling the forum's mission statement promoting fellowship and diversity. Imagine, for instance, the Political Debates forum without conservative members. It would be one-sided, one-dimensional, and uninteresting; the "Debates" in "Political Debates" would whither away, which is not what we want. Furthermore, conservative religious members add fundamental variety to the religious debates and discussions on this forum, enriching the diversity thereof.

Second, let's talk about the representation of conservative members on RF. If we define a conservative as "someone who respects and aims to preserve the status quo," we already have some conservatives on the staff. It is true, however, that the ratio of socially and politically conservative staff members to socially and politically liberal ones is on the low side. As a result, we are currently looking into adding more socially and politically conservative members to the staff.

Just drop this bone and either start posting in other threads or leave. Really simple.

 

[Truth7t7]

I

You have been here for only one day, with seven messages, and you are already declaring the forum to have a "one-sided bias"?

Aside from the evident hastiness in your statement, I wonder why you, as such a new member, would seek to paint the forum and moderation in a negative light so quickly. It seems strange, to say the least.

Im representing the conservative voice, something that is in the minority around here, as per your own posting.

Is your stance to slay the conservative opposition, or give it equal footing with the Liberal one sided bias that appears to be the norm?

Im a staunch conservative, do I have a voice?

Homosexuality is wrong and God condems it, Romans 1:24-32

Same Sex Marriage is wrong, as marriage is between a man and woman, Matthew 19:4-6

Debater Slayer Said:

Debater SlayerBorn-again Glompist
Staff MemberPremium Member
Hi, all,

In the last couple of months, certain people have PMed me about the status of conservative members on RF and expressed concerns regarding what they thought was an under-representation of conservative members on the forum.

First, I think clarifying the RF administration's stance on conservative members is important. We consider them a crucial element of fulfilling the forum's mission statement promoting fellowship and diversity. Imagine, for instance, the Political Debates forum without conservative members. It would be one-sided, one-dimensional, and uninteresting; the "Debates" in "Political Debates" would whither away, which is not what we want. Furthermore, conservative religious members add fundamental variety to the religious debates and discussions on this forum, enriching the diversity thereof.

Second, let's talk about the representation of conservative members on RF. If we define a conservative as "someone who respects and aims to preserve the status quo," we already have some conservatives on the staff. It is true, however, that the ratio of socially and politically conservative staff members to socially and politically liberal ones is on the low side. As a result, we are currently looking into adding more socially and politically conservative members to the staff.

 

[Sunstone]

Just drop this bone and either start posting in other threads or leave. Really simple.

Excellent advice.

 

[Woberts]

I

Im representing the conservative voice, something that is in the minority around here, as per your own posting.

Is your stance to slay the conservative opposition, or give it equal footing with the Liberal one sided bias that appears to be the norm?

Im a staunch conservative, do I have a voice?

Homosexuality is wrong and God condems it, Romans 1:24-32

Same Sex Marriage is wrong, as marriage is between a man and woman, Matthew 19:4-6

Debater SlayerBorn-again Glompist
Staff MemberPremium Member
Hi, all,

In the last couple of months, certain people have PMed me about the status of conservative members on RF and expressed concerns regarding what they thought was an under-representation of conservative members on the forum.

First, I think clarifying the RF administration's stance on conservative members is important. We consider them a crucial element of fulfilling the forum's mission statement promoting fellowship and diversity. Imagine, for instance, the Political Debates forum without conservative members. It would be one-sided, one-dimensional, and uninteresting; the "Debates" in "Political Debates" would whither away, which is not what we want. Furthermore, conservative religious members add fundamental variety to the religious debates and discussions on this forum, enriching the diversity thereof.

Second, let's talk about the representation of conservative members on RF. If we define a conservative as "someone who respects and aims to preserve the status quo," we already have some conservatives on the staff. It is true, however, that the ratio of socially and politically conservative staff members to socially and politically liberal ones is on the low side. As a result, we are currently looking into adding more socially and politically conservative members to the staff.

Are you seriously complaining about the moderation team on a private forum that no one is forcing you to post in?

 

[Sunstone]

Is you stance to slay the conservative opposition, or give it equal footing with the Liberal one sided bias that appears to be the norm?

You've been on this forum less than 48 hours and you already know everything about us. Congratulations! Do you have any contributions to make to this forum besides whining and griping?

I'm beginning to suspect you of indulging in recreational outrage.

 

[Rival]

recreational outrage.

...mind if I steal this phrase and use it for Nafi?

 

[Sunstone]

...mind if I steal this phrase and use it for Nafi?

Please do, I'd be honored!

Besides, I stole it from a political commentator.

 

[Polymath257]

I

Im representing the conservative voice, something that is in the minority around here, as per your own posting.

Is your stance to slay the conservative opposition, or give it equal footing with the Liberal one sided bias that appears to be the norm?

Im a staunch conservative, do I have a voice?

Homosexuality is wrong and God condems it, Romans 1:24-32

Same Sex Marriage is wrong, as marriage is between a man and woman, Matthew 19:4-6

Debater Slayer Said:

Debater SlayerBorn-again Glompist
Staff MemberPremium Member
Hi, all,

In the last couple of months, certain people have PMed me about the status of conservative members on RF and expressed concerns regarding what they thought was an under-representation of conservative members on the forum.

First, I think clarifying the RF administration's stance on conservative members is important. We consider them a crucial element of fulfilling the forum's mission statement promoting fellowship and diversity. Imagine, for instance, the Political Debates forum without conservative members. It would be one-sided, one-dimensional, and uninteresting; the "Debates" in "Political Debates" would whither away, which is not what we want. Furthermore, conservative religious members add fundamental variety to the religious debates and discussions on this forum, enriching the diversity thereof.

Second, let's talk about the representation of conservative members on RF. If we define a conservative as "someone who respects and aims to preserve the status quo," we already have some conservatives on the staff. It is true, however, that the ratio of socially and politically conservative staff members to socially and politically liberal ones is on the low side. As a result, we are currently looking into adding more socially and politically conservative members to the staff.

If you are trying to angle for a moderator position, this is hardly the way to do it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Bias in my "opinion" would be not having "One Admin/Mod on (Religious Forums)
That opposes homosexuality, same sex marriage, abortion.

You can't claim there aren't any religious bible believing christians that don"t oppose the three items?

They just won't be found in the Mod team here, thats a no brainer don't ya think, sorta like going to a predetermined rainbow flag church?

We have had staff members who opposed all three of the things you listed. Our criteria for picking staff members are primarily based on factors that have nothing to do with personal opinions as much as attitude, productivity in posting, and having a clean record with few or no rule violations.

I notice that you went searching for a post I made a long time ago in order to bolster your point regarding perceived bias, though. So within the space of your two-day membership here, you have asked loaded questions aimed at discrediting the forum administration, spent most or all of your time and effort here to select posts that you believe support your claims, and posted complaints about the forum's staff more than you have posted about your own beliefs or participated in debates and discussions to make your voice heard here.

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but selective bashing based on incomplete information is not the way to achieve anything productive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Im representing the conservative voice, something that is in the minority around here, as per your own posting.

Is your stance to slay the conservative opposition, or give it equal footing with the Liberal one sided bias that appears to be the norm?

Im a staunch conservative, do I have a voice?

Your first question is both loaded and based on lack of information.

First, you pitted conservatives as "opposition" to me in my capacity as an admin, which is inaccurate because my primary job is to serve the forum and its community regardless of their beliefs.

Second, if you think "liberal bias" is the norm, then you don't know much about this forum or how it is run. I have already stated that I'm not even a liberal myself, for example, but your selective focus on three issues to base your criticism on seems to have led you to dismiss that.

Regarding your second question, yes, you have a voice regardless of your political or religious affiliation, as you will see if you spend enough time here. However, you seem to be too busy dismissing explanations from posters in this thread to use your voice in other threads. Consequently, I can only point out that if there is any lack of voice from you, it is due to your own posting decisions and priorities, not anyone else's.

Feel free to browse the different forum sections to become more accustomed to the forum's general climate. Otherwise we may be reaching an unnecessary stalemate where your assumptions lead you to refuse explanations that don't match your preconceived notions about the forum.