This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
Yeah, I didn't get time to reply to these. Basic internet forum theory is that any comment is potentially subject to removal at the will of one, yet this is in total agreement with limited free-speech theory. All speech is inherently limited by timeframe and physical ability, and society adds further commonsense limits. On this foundation a modest additional restriction can be added by sponsors such as prohibiting lawbreaking, and another modest restriction by moderators such as support of a focused forum purpose. Rules must be fair and applied fairly, and to this end appeals and procedures are to be welcomed. Transparency.
My intent is to list all the claims you've reasonably provided in this thread, including in this comment, so that we can render judgment on ourselves all at once. CIAMM has indicated agreement by already modifying two sentences you objected to. Your latest comment suggests you might be willing to accept this method. It takes time, of course, and other life factors intervene. If you are willing to self-moderate the two urgent requests you make, i.e., general incompletely defined offense and demand in the Lord's name for relinquishment, that will greatly ease tensions and facilitate our taking the time to get it right.
Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
And you think you get free reign to maliciously misrepresent half the Christians on the planet, on my watch?<
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one.
The unsourced statement "Catholics are satanists" would get deleted right out in virtually every case, because even though it's a voluntary religion rather than a race, the charge against the voluntary practice of so many is too strong. The unsourced statement "Muslims are satanists" would meet the same fate, but there is just a flicker more possibility that context might bear retention out because Muslims reject the creeds that Catholics accept. All comments are judged by standards similar to this, usually independently by me and CIAMM (two checks for each one), sometimes by the others too. But this is a preview of showing you the baselines and judging the accused behavior in accord with them. Instead (and I know you don't go as far as those examples), proceed with the facts and logic as best as you remember them, and allow friendly amendment, and you'll find the drama initiated by unconnected dots and sweeping generalizations will disappear. You did this in your other recent comment.
We've had a few 365-day or indefinite bans, but always for accounts easily classified as NPC's by the totality of their behavior.
If you've checked out the public prayer thread, you know that CIAMM has done what he could for his adult son and has still consented to deal with you despite our concern that you could be subject to the same charges you deal against us, and his having to respond to the results of that. Slack is appropriate.
This is a lie. I get shouted down over comments that are within all community guidelines, when I try to respond I get deleted. More important than even this, who made this guy the pope and the sole authority in all biblical matters?
So you're saying the statement "Andy misrepresented my statement as though I had stated that Andy is a ridiculous person" is a lie. Andy's deleted post read, "They can call your ideas or thoughts 'ridiculous'." So I'd need to defer to u/CuomoisaMassMurderer on that, because at first glance it looks like he misremembered it or meant something else. But, even if that's the case, at the same time you're charging a lie, which usually means an intentional distortion; so it's a wash yet again.
Assuming your charges are correctly stated, the resolution is to undelete the two comments and to establish protocols for you not getting deleted again in borderline cases. But I've already proposed resolutions and you're having a hard time interacting with that. I've been trying to tell people you used to be easy to get along with; maybe something's changed in your life that you're responding almost exclusively in complaints, without seeking resolution (as Jesus says). God will answer.
It's my understanding that CIAMM finds it very offensive to be called "pope" as a faithful EO member, especially because we've hardly even talked about evidence that we treated Catholicisim with imbalance. You might consider that in future. The admins, on behalf of the LLC, designated the 4 of us as authorities on determining the meaning of our rules and particularly the creeds that we adopted therein. On all other Biblical matters there's technically free rein for everyone. Now can we get past the rhetoric and start following the Scripture that you apparently invoked in the name of Jesus that you worship?
I find it "very offensive" to be called a liar and my contributions "garbage" and "ridiculous," etc. What point is there to contribute tightly controlled thoughts and ideas that are subject to be removed at the will of one?
Yeah, I didn't get time to reply to these. Basic internet forum theory is that any comment is potentially subject to removal at the will of one, yet this is in total agreement with limited free-speech theory. All speech is inherently limited by timeframe and physical ability, and society adds further commonsense limits. On this foundation a modest additional restriction can be added by sponsors such as prohibiting lawbreaking, and another modest restriction by moderators such as support of a focused forum purpose. Rules must be fair and applied fairly, and to this end appeals and procedures are to be welcomed. Transparency.
My intent is to list all the claims you've reasonably provided in this thread, including in this comment, so that we can render judgment on ourselves all at once. CIAMM has indicated agreement by already modifying two sentences you objected to. Your latest comment suggests you might be willing to accept this method. It takes time, of course, and other life factors intervene. If you are willing to self-moderate the two urgent requests you make, i.e., general incompletely defined offense and demand in the Lord's name for relinquishment, that will greatly ease tensions and facilitate our taking the time to get it right.
Use the analogy of a 13 year old girl being raped by 4 guys twice my size. I'd put a stop to it even if it meant getting killed. Your treatment of Catholics is equally as heinous.
I've been contemplating on this for some time today and wishing I could let pass, but I can't. Who else cannot see the mental instability here?
He's got a child in the hospital and he's raging about me?
Well, actually, the context of this is
Andy_Man45 - Constantine changed times and laws suspiciously like the scriptures say that the man of lawlessness will.
Goliath - Your raping 4 year olds!
In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one.
The unsourced statement "Catholics are satanists" would get deleted right out in virtually every case, because even though it's a voluntary religion rather than a race, the charge against the voluntary practice of so many is too strong. The unsourced statement "Muslims are satanists" would meet the same fate, but there is just a flicker more possibility that context might bear retention out because Muslims reject the creeds that Catholics accept. All comments are judged by standards similar to this, usually independently by me and CIAMM (two checks for each one), sometimes by the others too. But this is a preview of showing you the baselines and judging the accused behavior in accord with them. Instead (and I know you don't go as far as those examples), proceed with the facts and logic as best as you remember them, and allow friendly amendment, and you'll find the drama initiated by unconnected dots and sweeping generalizations will disappear. You did this in your other recent comment.
We've had a few 365-day or indefinite bans, but always for accounts easily classified as NPC's by the totality of their behavior.
If you've checked out the public prayer thread, you know that CIAMM has done what he could for his adult son and has still consented to deal with you despite our concern that you could be subject to the same charges you deal against us, and his having to respond to the results of that. Slack is appropriate.