Smyrna’s Complaint Thread

[stage director]

Smyrna, because you've made belittling comments to Oneway in the past, of course I'm going to read it as a slur. I firmly believed it was. Here's the thing.. Oneway treats everybody decently. I feel like you take advantage of his good nature along with the fact that he's a pretty humble guy, and figure you can dump on him. I feel like that's especially wrong because of the way Oneway carries himself, ie. in a non confrontational manner. I felt that in this instance you used regrets he's shared about lifestyle choices in his youth to try to wound him. For that reason I flagged your post.

[friend]

Friend, why have you decided to come over here from your LaRouche threads? Shepherds Chapel has never been of interest to you; so I question your motives. You seem to be here to confront me personally. Why?

Calling someone an internet forum troll is, I admit, subjective. My criteria is based on accepted definitions in most online public forums. If a member of a forum purposely provokes others into emotional responses designed to pull them into a flaming discussion, that person can be described as a troll.

Sammael’s description of certain members of this forum as being “wussy punks” is certainly indicative of the kind of behavior that most forum moderators and administrators would call troll-like. His warning that we haven’t heard the last of him, that “so many think I’m bad now but they have no idea what they’re dealing with,” that the only ones complaining about him are “retarded grungy neo hippies,” and telling us that he’ll be “continuing his work” and to “be afraid be very afraid” are the kind of things that those who are described as trolls do.

Sammael’s aggressive in-your-face confrontational style is what led me to describe him as an internet forum troll. Not to mention the posts that the moderator deleted because of inappropriate language that was in violation of forum rules, and the fact that he’s been banned from posting several times because of his outrageous behavior that’s designed to bait others into flame wars.

Since “forum troll” is used widely by those who administer public internet forums in describing such behavior, I feel that I am justified in referring to Sammael as a troll; but like I said, it’s only my subjective opinion.

This is a forum about cults right? I am trying to understand how calling people trolls, cult members, anti-Semites (backed by the infallible Google search), etc. helps anyone get out of a cult or helps those newly out heal.

[Josh2]

Hi Friend. This forum is not solely about cults. FACTnet provides it as a venue for people to express themselves in a wide variety of subjects spanning religion, politics, science, evolution, creationism and any other subject that members are interested in. There is a great deal of Bible study here that isn’t related to cults.

This particular thread that you’ve decided to chime in on is a running conversation between a small group of people that have been arguing with one another for almost six years. As in your LaRouche threads, nobody is going to change their minds, the same issues are repeated over and over again with no possible resolution, and nobody thinks they're in a cult; so it all ends up being just a place to argue…which is what most of the people coming here like to do. And that’s fine. Part of my job as moderator is to make sure it doesn't turn into a flame war filled with animosity, insults, and hostility.

This forum is essentially a sandbox that FACTnet provides for all of you to play in. Calling others trolls, cult members, and anti-Semitic isn’t ad hominem as long as it’s backed up with evidence. Here in this thread Smyrna and the other students of Arnold Murray have been called racist and anti-Semitic since the beginning; and it’s up to them to counter that with their own views of how this is not true; which is what they’ve been doing for more than five years. This is what the Shepherds Chapel threads have been all about. It isn’t ad hominem, it’s the opinions of those who come here. A debate.

Does this help you understand?

[smyrna]

"This forum is essentially a sandbox that FACTnet provides for all of you to play in. Calling others trolls, cult members, and anti-Semitic isn’t ad hominem as long as it’s backed up with evidence. Here in this thread Smyrna and the other students of Arnold Murray have been called racist and anti-Semitic since the beginning" -Dodge/Josh

Sandbox? A little condescending,(trolling)don't you think? Especially since you've contributed to it. I suppose you'll never stop misusing the term ad hominem, there is nothing in the definition that says one has to use factual information or personally believe what they say is true. I wish it did, because that's the reason you use to get away with it while banning others who believe what they are saying.

I've got it figured out: when you are being aggressive on this or any other thread as "Dodge", then when you criticize someone or want to rankle them, it's never ad hominem to you. But when others do it, to you or anyone else, even when they believe what they are saying about someone else is true, as "Josh125" you define what they are doing as "abusive ad hominem" which they can't get away with.

"Part of my job as moderator is to make sure it doesn't turn into a flame war filled with animosity, insults, and hostility."

Where in the rules does it say hostility, and animosity are not allowed? It's natural to have those emotions when your opponents are accusing you of things which aren't true. You don't think we should send candy and flowers whenever someone calls me a Nazi, or I say someone is a moron for saying something that makes no sense to me, do you? And I am insulted by your characterizing this forum as a "sandbox" so is this the double standard I've been talking about?

You're right, SCers have been called racists and antisemitic since the beginning, not to mention stooges, accused of giving Arnold Murray oral sex, and other outrageous things, all with NO moderators doing anything about it. Now since you claim if you think something is true then it's not ad hominem, I suppose it's okay, and so you must think all SCers are racists and antisemitic. That definition is faulty, or you don't always go by it, which is my point. If I say so and so is a moron, then Smyrna is flaming, using "abusive ad hominem", but of someone calls me a Nazi,racist, antisemitic, etc. even though I'm not, then that is quite okay, because it's been going on for five years.

[smyrna]

SAMMAEL

Friend, why have you decided to come over here from your LaRouche threads? Shepherds Chapel has never been of interest to you; so I question your motives. You seem to be here to confront me personally. Why?

Calling someone an internet forum troll is, I admit, subjective. My criteria is based on accepted definitions in most online public forums. If a member of a forum purposely provokes others into emotional responses designed to pull them into a flaming discussion, that person can be described as a troll.

Sammael’s description of certain members of this forum as being “wussy punks” is certainly indicative of the kind of behavior that most forum moderators and administrators would call troll-like. His warning that we haven’t heard the last of him, that “so many think I’m bad now but they have no idea what they’re dealing with,” that the only ones complaining about him are “retarded grungy neo hippies,” and telling us that he’ll be “continuing his work” and to “be afraid be very afraid” are the kind of things that those who are described as trolls do.

Sammael’s aggressive in-your-face confrontational style is what led me to describe him as an internet forum troll. Not to mention the posts that the moderator deleted because of inappropriate language that was in violation of forum rules, and the fact that he’s been banned from posting several times because of his outrageous behavior that’s designed to bait others into flame wars.

Since “forum troll” is used widely by those who administer public internet forums in describing such behavior, I feel that I am justified in referring to Sammael as a troll; but like I said, it’s only my subjective opinion.

My opinion is that if Sammael believes what he says about someone, then it's not ad homnem, you can't disagree with that, can you Dodge? And if someone reacts rather than ignores Sammael then they are just as guilty of entering a flame war, even starting one, rather than simply ignoring him if they don't like what he says.

Sammael is welcome anywhere I choose to provide a venue for him, he can even say negative things about me if he feels the need. Maybe I need a wake up call at times. He's entitled to his full opinion, not one that is whitewashed or diluted by censors. There are no children here, at least ones under 12. What in the world has PC done to people? I know, Sammael used the term he's now being called a troll for.

[friend]

Hi Friend. This forum is not solely about cults. FACTnet provides it as a venue for people to express themselves in a wide variety of subjects spanning religion, politics, science, evolution, creationism and any other subject that members are interested in. There is a great deal of Bible study here that isn’t related to cults.

This particular thread that you’ve decided to chime in on is a running conversation between a small group of people that have been arguing with one another for almost six years. As in your LaRouche threads, nobody is going to change their minds, the same issues are repeated over and over again with no possible resolution, and nobody thinks they're in a cult; so it all ends up being just a place to argue…which is what most of the people coming here like to do. And that’s fine. Part of my job as moderator is to make sure it doesn't turn into a flame war filled with animosity, insults, and hostility.

This forum is essentially a sandbox that FACTnet provides for all of you to play in. Calling others trolls, cult members, and anti-Semitic isn’t ad hominem as long as it’s backed up with evidence. Here in this thread Smyrna and the other students of Arnold Murray have been called racist and anti-Semitic since the beginning; and it’s up to them to counter that with their own views of how this is not true; which is what they’ve been doing for more than five years. This is what the Shepherds Chapel threads have been all about. It isn’t ad hominem, it’s the opinions of those who come here. A debate.

Does this help you understand?

Yes, it does.

Six years? Wow. There are some guys on that LaRouche thread who have been at it for nearly a decade. I don't quite know what to say.

[Josh2]

Hi Smyrna. No, I don’t think that calling this forum a sandbox is “a little condescending/trolling.” This is the way Admin described it back in 2008: “I spend more time than you realize trying to create a little sandbox where you can play your games.” (Admin post, 06-23-2008, #90, Our Brother Judah is Preparing for War thread). I certainly agree with him, because that’s exactly what this is. You've been playing your games for more than six years here; and now you don't like it that you can't call other members of this forum morons, idiots, and cretins anymore. So what do you do? Like a child you storm out and create a blog attacking FACTnet and moderation here, and come back periodically to complain and moan about the rules.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, though I disagree with most of them. You asked me “where in the rules does it say hostility and animosity are not allowed.” Perhaps you missed the part before that were I mentioned “flame wars filled with animosity, insults, and hostility.” FACTnet’s user agreement specifically states that “flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.” What causes flame wars is hostile insulting rhetoric filled with animosity. As a matter of fact, the user agreement asks members that “when writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone,” and “it’s fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.”

These guidelines are an attempt to maintain civility through forum etiquette. They also say that “we are serious about our discussion forum rules contained within the FACTnet website user agreement! If you violate the website user agreement rules, you will be barred from posting.”

One of the reasons that I deleted some of Sammael’s posts and banned him in the past was because of inappropriate language. The user agreement states that “you explicitly agree in using this web site that you shall not use language that is inconsistent with our community standards. Do not swear or use profanity.”

As a moderator, I’m here to make sure that our forum is free of flame wars, profanity, insulting rhetoric and personal attacks. You can run your anti-FACTnet blog any way you see fit; but if you, Sammael, or anyone else want to continue to contribute to the ongoing dialogue here I’m the new sheriff in town. Either abide by the rules or get out of Dodge!

[easeltine]

Cultblunders and Shepherdbs Chapel Part I.

“you explicitly agree in using this web site that you shall not use language that is inconsistent with our community standards. Do not swear or use profanity.

As a moderator, I’m here to make sure that our forum is free of flame wars, profanity, insulting rhetoric and personal attacks."

Hi Josh,

It is well know that I am not a fan of Shepherds Chapel, and totally agree with your comments. Do you think that the title of this thread is deliberate against Shepherds Chapel fitting into your definitions or do you think that the person accidently made a spelling mistake? ShepherdBS? I mean we all know what BS stands for? I am not looking who started this thread, but isn't that a little over the top?

[Josh2]

Hi Easeltine. It was Smyrna who started this thread more than five years ago in an effort to discredit Franklin’s forum (Cultbusters). He pointed out the Star Trek theme, saying that the “participants are lost in space,” and that the information there about Shepherds Chapel is misleading. He criticized their debate tactics, saying they twist the words that others say; and that “those who think Shepherds chapel is a cult are idiots.”

That was the topic and opening thesis of this thread years ago; but over time it just became a place the usual crowd came to argue with one another, their sandbox to play in. As it is now there’s no focus, so there’s no point in trying to ask anyone to stay on topic. The topic now is whatever anyone wants to bring up; and currently it’s Smyrna’s attempt to discredit FACTnet and its moderation team (me). Right now I’m the only moderator here, like it or not.

I was asked to step in last year to help control the hostility, the name-calling, and the personal attacks that filled the Shepherds Chapel threads with flame wars. It hasn’t been easy. There are some here who simply refuse to act in a civil manner when engaging in debate, and feel it’s their right to say anything they want without restriction. However, as moderator, it’s my responsibility to see to it that the user agreement rules are enforced.

Having said that, I realize that in the heat of argument it’s natural for tempers to flare; so the rules have to be flexible. What I look for are abusive patterns, consistent rhetoric that’s designed to draw others into insulting hostile interactions; deliberate flaming as opposed to emotional outbursts resulting from heated discussions. This kind of behavior impedes communication and disrupts the discussion, leading to dozens of posts filled with nothing but animosity and conflict. As moderator, I have the final say as to what is abusive ad hominem, what posts will be deleted, and who will be banned.

But there is a volunteer I trust who might be taking my place as moderator of the Christian Centered section soon; depending on the vetting process. The forum administrator has to approve; but I don’t see any problems there. I will be handling moderation of the other sections when this happens, and working on other projects. Hopefully it will be a smooth transition, and to your liking.

[smyrna]

My only comment "Josh' in response to yours: I haven't "discredited" FactNet's moderators or Franklin's forum. I didn't lie to you, you and Furillo lied to me as well as deceived the active members of this forum at the time. It was you who admitted you were Dodge on my blog, don't ask me why you did that, because that irreparably damaged my tenuous but previously amiable relationship with FactNet's staff. I therefore have not contributed to discrediting FactNet, when one chooses someone with painfully obvious conflicts of interest to moderate this forum, all hell is expected to break loose, and it did. No one in their right mind would trust someone in that situation.

SC people have never had any protection from the vile, malicious accusations from SC bashers which was the reason I was asked to come to FactNet in the first place. So the cards were stacked against us from the get go.

Franklin, as you know, makes off the wall accusations and has done so for six years, and so he discredits himself by making easily refuted accusations.

[Josh2]

Smyrna, all your whining and complaining is pointless. I am the moderator here like it or not. All you have to do is abide by the user agreement rules and all will be hunky-dory. Just engage in civil discourse, it’s as simple as that. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

[smyrna]

Smyrna, all your whining and complaining is pointless. I am the moderator here like it or not. All you have to do is abide by the user agreement rules and all will be hunky-dory. Just engage in civil discourse, it’s as simple as that. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

Characterizing my protests as "whining and complaining" is a distraction from my main point which I have made abundantly clear: you cannot be trusted to moderate this board fairly. It is simple common sense that one does not put a person who is prejudicial to the majority consensus, here it is Christian beliefs which in various nuances within the Christian belief spectrum makes up the consensus here, in a position of authority over their discussions.

This conflict of interest is exacerbated by your own personal prejudices against certain individuals here, due to your long time interaction with them on forums and threads. That my opinion is bolstered by the fact you continue to evade admitting your identity here, and that your superior also was complicit in this deception, rather than manning up and apologizing for this egregious betrayal of trust which is generally expected of the administrators of any moderated forum.

You offend all the participants on this board by referring to it as a "sandbox for us to play in", while we all, no matter whether SCers or detractors, are passionate about their Christians beliefs, which they in one way or another see as part of their spiritual journey which involves their faith in the immortality of the soul as a reward for that faith, and wish all to escape this death of the flesh and attain eternal life of their souls as well as others. That is hardly "playing" it is the quest for truth which is in essence a quest for hearing God's message and echoing it so others may also enjoy the same as what we seek.

Personally, I see more playing in a person who holds no such beliefs, has given every appearance he thinks he is a superior intellect which can't be as gullible as those ignorant Christians, and expects us to just sit and watch while you put your Dodge hat on and mock our beliefs, and then in the matter of minutes slap on your Josh hat and tell us if we don't like the forum being moderated by an atheist and admitted board troll who sees us as fools then tough, deal with it.

To take the attitude of "hey, like it or lump it" in my opinion is arrogant and apathetic to the intended decorum and thus is a contradiction. In other words, how can you expect others to respect the rules here when they are not only administered unevenly, and when the administrators have wantonly engaged in deceiving the members, who are expected to accept it as "no big deal" and if someone doesn't like being deceived they can just leave.

There is no spin adequate to explain why SC people can come here and read FactNet's terms of service,expected to willfully abide by them, and yet are maliciously attacked from the outset by seeing threads long in place with titles such as "Shepherd's Chapel: Racist Stooges identified" and then have endured literally years of such attacks, simply because the moderators hold the opinion the attackers are accurately depicting what Shepherd's Chapel teaches, no matter how much home spun mis-characterizations are applied to them.

While detractors act with revulsion over being called morons and idiots, SCers have endured unfairly being called racists, Nazis, cult members for years with no moderator intervention, because it's the detractor's opinions, but if my opinion is they are morons and idiots for thinking those things, I'm not allowed to use those terms because they are offensive. Well, I am offended by being compared to Nazis, or described as a racist and cult member, as are every single SC student that's ever been here. So where is the even hand of the moderators here?

So what I am protesting is hardly whining, which is your way of trying to diminish the importance of the issues I've raised, an attempt to marginalize SC student's
plight created by zealous Chapel critics, and that is something that shouldn't be expected nor found in a supposedly unbiased moderator.

Finally, apparently someone at FactNet is listening to my "whining" as you spin it, if it is true there is a replacement currently being vetted for the Christian boards. If that indeed occurs, and I am able to discern it's not yet another case of giving you a new alias and carrying on this charade, since you refuse to openly say you are also Dodge here (which is silly since anyone can go to my blog and see you admitted it and view all the other evidence) it will be then I will reassess whether the FactNet staff is committed to providing a truly fair environment for forum participants. Otherwise, it's not a forum, but just a soapbox for whatever agenda Factnet wishes to support.

[Josh2]

Hi Smyrna. As I keep telling you, I’m the moderator here. I don’t care if you don’t like that. All your whining, moaning, and complaining is pointless. Just get back to engaging in civil discourse and at least try to avoid hostility and antagonism. I expect you and others to abide by the user agreement guidelines: flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated, try to stay on topic, and don’t impede or disrupt discussions. I am serious about maintaining forum civility, and if you violate the website user agreement rules you will be barred from posting.

It’s as simple as that. You are welcome here as long as you behave yourself. Your track record here is known to all of us; so let go of this faux indignation and start using this forum the way it is intended. Discuss, communicate, debate.

[smyrna]

Hi Smyrna. As I keep telling you, I’m the moderator here. I don’t care if you don’t like that. All your whining, moaning, and complaining is pointless. Just get back to engaging in civil discourse and at least try to avoid hostility and antagonism. I expect you and others to abide by the user agreement guidelines: flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated, try to stay on topic, and don’t impede or disrupt discussions. I am serious about maintaining forum civility, and if you violate the website user agreement rules you will be barred from posting.

It’s as simple as that. You are welcome here as long as you behave yourself. Your track record here is known to all of us; so let go of this faux indignation and start using this forum the way it is intended. Discuss, communicate, debate.

And as I keep telling you, you cannot be trusted it is a conflict of interest with your declared prejudices and that you continue to characterize the issues I raised and as anyone can see your use of ad hominem (speaking of my "track record" rather than the valid issues I raised only affirms you cannot be trusted. It's easy to talk the talk, but to walk the walk? I'll see if and when this moderator change comes, and only then, as I said, I'll reassess whether Factnet is providing a level playing field for intellectual discourse. So far, in my six years here, it has not, and recently has become far worse.

[Josh2]

Hi Smyrna -- Thank you for expressing your opinions about the moderation and administration of FACTnet’s discussion board. We appreciate the feedback and will give it the attention and consideration that it is due.

[stage director]

And as I keep telling you, you cannot be trusted it is a conflict of interest with your declared prejudices

Ok, I don't want to get involved in speculations about the identity of the mod, but.. why can't someone post on a forum but then put on their admin cap to carry out any required duties that role entails? I mean, their role as mod is pretty standard. Don't cuss, don't fuss, don't harass, mind your manners, blah, blah. The two roles are separate, imo, with one not affecting the other. You're interacting as a member, and then you're doing what you're obligated to do to keep some semblance of peace (hopefully) ..and under ideal circumstances you're doing a lot more of the former than the latter. It's not like there's much fun in having to moderate folks.

[dodge]

Fact is, every moderator who has ever held that position here at FACTnet forum has had a general membership username; it’s just that it’s never come up before. Stage Director is right. One is able to be a regular member of a forum and also put on the moderator’s hat when necessary. Besides, Josh has the full confidence of Mr. FACTnet (the Admin) and the owner of this website (Lawrence Wollershiem). Get over it Smyrna.

[smyrna]

Ok, I don't want to get involved in speculations about the identity of the mod, but.. why can't someone post on a forum but then put on their admin cap to carry out any required duties that role entails? I mean, their role as mod is pretty standard. Don't cuss, don't fuss, don't harass, mind your manners, blah, blah. The two roles are separate, imo, with one not affecting the other. You're interacting as a member, and then you're doing what you're obligated to do to keep some semblance of peace (hopefully) ..and under ideal circumstances you're doing a lot more of the former than the latter. It's not like there's much fun in having to moderate folks.

"Ok, I don't want to get involved in speculations about the identity of the mod, but.. why can't someone post on a forum but then put on their admin cap to carry out any required duties that role entails? I mean, their role as mod is pretty standard."

Like I said, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? I won't repeat why that has not worked here, it resulted in decisions which clearly were biased. It is human nature to gravitate and favor those you like and to treat with prejudice those you do not.

I'll tell you what Stage Director: Let's try and draw analogies to the situation at hand:

Analogy: A vegetarian and PETA member moderating a forum of fur seal hunters.

Here's one more, I would think you can think of quite a few when one gets the ball rolling:

A confessed pedophile serial killer moderating a children's grammar school discussion board.

Josh125

"Hi Smyrna -- Thank you for expressing your opinions about the moderation and administration of FACTnet’s discussion board. We appreciate the feedback and will give it the attention and consideration that it is due."

Pretty funny Dodge, the timing is uproariously funny!

[smyrna]

Fact is, every moderator who has ever held that position here at FACTnet forum has had a general membership username; it’s just that it’s never come up before. Stage Director is right. One is able to be a regular member of a forum and also put on the moderator’s hat when necessary. Besides, Josh has the full confidence of Mr. FACTnet (the Admin) and the owner of this website (Lawrence Wollershiem). Get over it Smyrna.

I doubt very seriously Mr. Wollershiem has any idea what transpired on this forum. If he does, I'd be very disappointed to learn he doesn't think anything of one moderator appointing a guy who once posted Christ in drag and still taunts members of this forum, making insulting, snide comments about their religion and about his biased behavior.

I also noticed you changed the name of this thread Dodge, that creates just one more point of evidence which helps one to confirm your biased and apathetic attitude, as does your snide comment about how you "appreciate my feedback and will give it the attention and consideration that it is due."

Really? After my protests were described as:

Whining
Obsessive
Trolling
Part of the sandbox FactNet provides

And that FactNet admins:

Don't care what I think.

I doubt this is the kind of stuff something Wollershiem approves of, or doesn't care about. What I do suspect is if he did find out, the spin machine would be in full force, and would include smearing me or anyone else that voiced opposition to all this nonsense.

[stage director]

I dunno, I guess I just don't see why it matters who moderates all that much. I've definitely never considered fn to be a Christian forum, even though it does provide opportunity for Christian discussion, so the odds are that the mods/admin will not be Christian anyway. Now, if you break a rule and someone else does the exact same thing but you're the only one sanctioned, then I think you've got a beef.. assuming, I suppose, that all things are pretty even and it's not your 25th time vs their first or something. But I don't anticipate that we as members are going to get a huge vote when it comes to the admin team, and I just don't see you winning this one. On the other hand, I don't advise someone to not voice their objection if they perceive a glaring discrepancy between their treatment vs someone else's, so I'd say pick battles you have a chance of winning. Ya know?