Sign In or Create an Account
Thank you for your patience and for accepting our apology. In that case I am authorized to conclude this conversation on behalf of the mod board with our appreciation for your forbearance.
You have been unbanned.
Your last two deleted comments have been undeleted.
It will be presumed that you understand that c/Christianity policy prevents out-of-context defamation of anybody and will be enforced evenly against all noncompliance.
We are developing policy to ensure that criticism of moderators, when in the context of facts and logic, will not be deleted rashly or without cause, and that civility in moderator communications will be honored.
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer may have additional comments.
Do you forgive us everything?
Do you release your demand that we relinquish the forum?
Would you like to be restored to the forum now?
u/CuomoisaMassMurderer has now found and deleted additional comments of his containing the words lying, lies, nonsense, lie, lie, false, lie, lies, falsehoods, error. These were the comments that, as you alluded, provoked you to respond harshly in the first place, so he has made a massive conciliatory step in doing so. For those keeping score at home, that's more comments deleted than those I still have on my list for asking him to consider editing in case it might give you the restitution you seek. Does this move discussion forward? May I ask what you're doing to address our concerns that you've launched three attack posts against us and reserved your right to launch a fourth? Shall we make a list of words that attack us that we'd like you to delete in the same way we have deleted all these words?
Add: He also edited the word "crap" out of two comments. IIRC, that's everything you've complained about from start to finish except the rape statement. Shall I ask him about that one too? What shall I tell him about your plans to regain him as a brother?
My error was just a format bug, thanks, I'll watch. The request was merely the same as the text I quoted.
Andy, I looked at everything deleted in the past 2 months, which was the same 2 comments and 1 post of yours that we've discussed. We don't generally delete your criticism of Catholics, even though Catholics have objected to us (and we field them like any other reports). I tried to say more tactfully that, if we're going to have equal rules for all three of us, your comments about Catholicism are likely to need revisiting due to comparability with the comments you've cited. But again, the degree of your excess is totally not the point. The point is what do we do about it. Are you asking me to look for comments of others that were deleted that should have provided a necessary anti-Catholic balance? I don't think any such exist. But in the meantime, without providing new evidence of our abuses, you're continuing to insult CIAMM with "goliath" now, while he has stopped insulting you. Oh wait, I guess you see his imbalanced comparison as an insult; well, your reaction isn't the best attuned to getting him to stop.
A complaint is useless without a remedy. Are you saying you should have the right to post an attack upon the mods of a forum and let it stand to see who votes it up? That's basically disruptive of the whole structure of any forum. If leadership is in error, you go through channels, you appeal to others, like the c:win link. When someone presents an offense to the church they present the evidence that they went through the first two steps of Matthew 18 already. If your cause is so right, it'll stand the discussion we're having now in lieu of a lurid anti-forum front-page drama. You had already started the charge of abuse in the other thread, you could've waited for our two replies there, or taken us aside privately, but you got the idea of testing it with votes (as you keep alluding) and you then reacted to that idea being immediately shut down. We have the ability to offer you to reinstate the thread, against my better judgment, but you're not acting like you want to commit to anything other than the catharsis of continuing to use time in these side points. In fact we have lots of abilities to create new rules applicable to unique situations, but you have hardly asked for anything other than to keep complaining.
Your post colored us as sinners, and you say you can take what you dish out, but then you complain repeatedly about our language. If every comment you complained about were instantly changed, and your comments and post reinstated, would you stop? If we also apologized, promised not to do it again, and demonstrated the policies by which we'd enforce our promise, would you stop? If we gave you whatever other benefits you'd list, would you stop? You have bound me by the name of Christ to finish this with you, and finish I will in his name, one way or another: you can gain your brothers, or we can conclude we made every effort to be at peace with all men and shake the dust of our feet off. Your protestation that we're trying to hide the post doesn't make any sense if you aren't willing to come to terms about getting us to release the post. There are some things we can do unilaterally, but we're not here to guess what bones to throw you without you agreeing that they move the discussion forward.
I try to take all comments in the most positive light, which is why I say (for the fourth time) that I could take his words in the light of describing everyone's equal guilt before God, and that it was rhetorically flawed because you could easily misunderstand it as a moral equivalence. That's not to excuse, merely to explain. And what do you want to do about it? Hosea 14:2 describes the three acts of repentance: apologize, ask forgiveness, and make restitution (including preventing recurrence). Will you permit us to do these things? In what process would you receive the fairness you seek?
This one didn't ping either of us. My answer conveyed the ambiguity. Yes, as being corruption of the human creature before the infinitely holy God; no, as being two different misuses of human relations. (This is my third time.)
Pressing this objection and rephrasing it as you do in another comment is not likely to advance us much on the work we have before us. But maybe we can seize upon it as a segue: shall we add bad analogies to the list of things that we can work on regulating better in the future as part of our negotiation? You're not asking us just for rhetoric's sake, you actually want certain behavior to stop and to work toward that goal, right?
Well, see, your sin is the other side of the coin from ours, isn't it? I've reviewed your charges in detail and can see some room for improvement on our side. One of the things necessary is that you and we have an understanding of how the policy against attack is to be applied rigorously and evenly across the board to each of us. If we reach that understanding, might some of your statements about Catholics be judged as going beyond doctrinal criticism into attack on individuals for their reasonable beliefs and affiliations? We must use caution. Do you want us to answer this request you asked us?
He would bash Catholics, spewing vile misrepresentations of them whenever a known Catholic commented.
He would bash Catholics, spewing vile misrepresentations of them whenever a known Catholic commented.
He would bash Catholics, spewing vile misrepresentations of them whenever a known Catholic commented.
Show this to us, pagan. Bring your comments that precede them also.
Show this to us, pagan. Bring your comments that precede them also.
It might be easier for you to just say you might've gone overboard in the past about Catholics, or Orthodox, than for us to actually list the evidence for CIAMM's assertion. Our making a counterclaim isn't that important. I've found the comments CIAMM made that seem to be the primary provocations to you, but that doesn't mean all your comments were provoked either.
So I'd suggest that we finesse that question by making it some kind of vague stipulation that'll be good enough for CIAMM to not object over, because having done that we can get to the meat you have on how bad veneration is and the difference from other forms of human respect, things like that. We don't even have to make it RCC-bashing because we can stick to bashing the EO so as to keep it among our sphere of experience, and it'll probably be easier to find agreement about it before we get to the thornier excesses of the RCC (both in individuals' abuses and in apologetic fencing).
I'd said, "In the sense of all sin is heinous before God, he has a point. Rhetorically, though, not the best one." (https://communities.win/p/13zgNkKr04/x/c/4JFq7sAr8jr)
Good to see you this morning. Reviewing the past history has answered a lot of questions for me in supplying the missing evidences in your history. Looks like we can put a proposed resolution together for you pretty quickly.
Hi Juls, I'm sorry I didn't notice this thread timely because I was working on the site revamp. I faintly remember some discussion on dreams where you posted Scripture but now I'm not finding the post with the data you provided. I'm pretty sure it was just a situation of having different views on the interpretation or weight of your Scriptures, because if someone had posted a flat-out direction to disregard the Bible we probably would've intervened. If my memory is wrong please let me know.
I'm sorry you were disturbed, and we now have better rules for combatting disruption in threads about personal experience. Anytime something is not right please click "message the moderators" in the c/Christianity sidebar. Thank you for bringing this to our attention even if indirectlly.
Thank you, u/Andy_Man45 is beginning to get his grudges out and we are able to make changes to accommodate as we compile a list. CIAMM has already withdrawn two of his disputed statements and we will probably have background policy changes too. We have no right to gang up on anyone, and if any mod and any other user ever both want an apology from each other it indicates they should approach each other civilly as Jesus intends.
I remember dealing with another congregational leader in a case where both our feelings were so hurt we each demanded the other take corrective action first. It was the swift counseling skill of a third leader that caused us to reconsider the Holy Spirit and our history working successfully together so that we could start making concessions to each other instead of demands.
Hear, hear! u/Andy_Man45 can come back early as soon as we know he wants to.
This is all great analysis. The default model is that all mods should support each other unless there are enough to have formal minority reports. When there are two primary mods you never want to have the "ask the other parent" game where there is a constant risk of undoing each other and then undoing the undo. We almost have enough critical mass, because sometimes I count Cuomo and CIAMM as two mods :) and even so it's still more valuable to the team for us to be patient and affirm each other until additional consensus can be reached in difficult cases.
Hey man, I'm always edified by this kind of encouragement, thanks. Looking forward to it.
I am thankful the spirit of confusion has left.
It is true that the link I provided, if properly parsed (I have now corrected the format), shows that you charged him with abuse and we both replied directly, very shortly after; only one other comment separates these three in the public comments log. I could use a tool to determine how many minutes it was between your charging abuse by comment and your escalating to the deleted post, but that would require server time and would not be an immediately answered request. So I think it's fair to say generally that "while we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post". If you're taking it from us to the body, that is escalation by definition. After CIAMM replied as visible in the link ("Your charge of abuse is laughably baseless ...."), we saw the post and made the deletion decision in further reply, while keeping dialogue open to test developments. The fact that you could've stayed in the thread rather than escalating is not that important; the nature of the charges (hasty mod accusations) being Biblically different from any other issue you've taken to the community via new post is important. (This applies not only as to elders but also as to general Scriptures about respect for leaders.)
I grant that your second nearly identical post was in response to our deletion of your first post, but the specifications in your first post were not in response to their own deletion. You specified by using four of our quotes, of which we don't know the exact initial links, but of which we've already self-deleted two candidates based on your partial assistance. So I said "without evidence" meaning without links to establish which comment(s) you were interpreting from what era. Whenever you accuse someone on the net of a quote, use links if it's not obvious!
I don't know what you mean about anathemata and it does not appear directly related to resolution. Yes, you have "checked the authority" under the ordinary check/balance system whereby you are exerting your appeal rights and we are working toward restitution acceptable to you, including standing policy changes. This does not appear to be anything special.
I grant that you were sincere in your post, but telling the truth requires facts, and the attribution of opinion to the opiner. Here's my quick analysis. Title, "not confined", judgment. Sentence 1, "false witness", generalized charge to be proven. 2, four quotes (five words) charging double standard in deletion; evidence that might be backed up by research, but no evidence that it applies to deletion as stated (I later provided links that might be judged later as backing up this claim, but you didn't even bother at first to state the context e.g. "a couple weeks ago"). 3, your knowledge of warning policy, supportive to claim but speculative. 4, "abuse of power" and comparison to a certain political party, opinion stated as fact, and politics are off-topic. 5, "mashers run their mouths etc.", colorable but basically opinion stated as fact. 6, "their church", and 7, "closer to your bishop", here is the plain false statement because my church doesn't use the title "bishop" and (as I determined from the context of your earlier and later general discussions) your implication is that CIAMM has an RCC bishop, also false. 8, Scripture, "soft answer", applies to us all.
The charge that we are both of the same church and that this church thinks it is God's personal spokesperson, supported by allusion to bishops, is thus a demonstrably false charge, disqualifying your post from being fully "telling the truth". The remainder escapes when colored in the best light, but imagine coloring it in the worst light.
Accordingly, your statement "This is not true", your implication "I told the truth" and nothing but, and your implication that your first charge "Not Confined ... was in direct response to ... deletion" of the post, have each been demonstrated to be inaccurate. That's not too relevant, it's just correcting the record. I'd like to proceed to analyzing your comments and listing the grievances reasonably implied or inferred, as you seem to have completed your list and are cycling your past grievances along with the treatment you're getting in this thread. I'm hopeful we can be circumspect enough not to accumulate new grievances while seeking to answer the old.
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.
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.
In this case it's to put gentle pressure on someone who has expressed offense during the period we had difficulty communicating the offense. It prevents him from dropping the subject or diverting. He asked us to relinquish the forum in Jesus's name, and I take that seriously and will not permit him to leave it uncontextualized. It's still his job to provide the context.
Now that he has given a responsible, dialogue-advancing reply we can probably proceed more naturally.
In general, the sales tactic of the "presumptive close" is a bargaining method of laying out different options that are all acceptable to the proposer and directing dialogue toward the proposition that the choice has been made nonverbally already. Sometimes it's very effective, sometimes it's manipulative, and it can even sink to the level of gaslighting.
Any time you think I'm manipulating, please advise! (I hope I'm not "manipulating" to give you the "options" of (1) if you are offended please take responsibility to tell me and (2) if you don't tell me I'll assume you're not offended. But see, the unstated option is that (3) you exert the right to retain offense and not have to tell me. By my framing I'm gently pushing you away from that risk. So there is a responsible use of persuasion.)
Thank you for this very reasonable explanation. I'm not conscious of failing to answer questions, I tried to keep on all the cascades, ping me what I missed, and I'll look again too. Maybe it was while I was at Sabbath services.
CIAMM has made statements about strong similarities. For instance IIRC the four EO sees took the related position that the claimant to Peter's seat has certain primacies but without superiority, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the second seat, and that the original sees should only take action in unanimity, and they haven't changed that. But the basic rule for everyone is if you want to bash a practice use facts and logic. Bash the EO for what it is because calling it the RCC rhetorically creates so much smoke your fire goes out.
So specifics. Yes, no idols; atonement once for all; one mediator. Yes, veneration claims are perceived harmful and must be judged on what the apologetics say and whether the practice agrees with a Biblical apologetic or goes too far. Yes, claims of continual sacrifice are perceived blasphemous and must be judged the same way. Yes, confession of sins to human guides is perceived as leading to heresy, same. I've invited reference to CCC to see how they explain these and compare it with Scripture, but haven't taken initiative to review that recently.
The ticklishness is that among us real believers we need to accept that these two vast bodies are as aware of the Biblical standards as the Protestants, and they have made their claims in a public, transparent manner. Formal Protestant positions of rejection exist but are not nearly as developed. Among the real believers in Christ the issue ought always to be Romans 14. One man's conscience permits him to partake of the "host", another man's prohibits him. The phrase "let each be fully convinced in his own mind" means that we do have the power to agree to disagree. Paul and Barnabas parting ways, even amidst strong and emotional divergence, gives us an example of how to proceed if it requires separate polity too; but I'm mostly talking about separation of practice only. There's a position that the host is always idolatrous, and there's a position that the host easily becomes idolatrous, and that nuance is very important to maintain!
So let's feel free to open dialogue to pick on those three questions (but let's not be insensitive to those Catholics who are also watching). There is nothing implied by the fact that we finally got around to a statement on universalism, which was the debate of the day, but we didn't get around to a formal position on Catholic excess. You're concerned that it's a stance to let the discussion flow freely without tightening or chilling in any direction; but the forum rules are to use the creeds as a baseline, and near as these issues are I don't have a simple attack. "No idols", then counterargument "veneration is not idolatry", and then we have to define terms and tie things down. For the forum's sake it's a bit harder to pull the criticism directly from the creed or commandments. But it can be discussed as a Romans 14 community.
And there your other issue comes in: neither you nor we may engage activity that can be reasonably known to offend others. There the dialogue ought to be about what lines not to cross. Don't take offense if you get heated on a topic and I give you a mod warning that I think you crossed a line we discussed that you don't think you crossed. Instead, calmly and without escalation, appeal to me the reasons for your disagreement. Often in modding it's such a small issue that it's not worth the distraction from your original topic. But just as you're watching, you're being watched by others, and circumspection is the word. But we can certainly go forward discussing consistency of rules, and specific clarifications about Roman practice.
As a tentative trial on those, I'd say (1) we can establish semiformal descriptions of mod practice between us and reevaluate selected decisions in that light; (2) veneration relates to the language used in approving the practice versus the Biblical language brought to bear against both the base practice and its excesses (including, e.g., bowing down to humans in respect throughout the Bible); (3) mass relates to the nature of sacrifice (we are the body of Christ and we are a living sacrifice, so we need to define terms very closely); (4) confession of sins, and the shepherding movement in Protestantism, relate to the nature of "confess your sins one to another" versus the authority of God in direct relationship with him. Maybe you want to add others. If you're willing to consent to this, it would be a breath of fresh air to me to know that such a dialogue could proceed in such way as to not offend others who perceive us as taking too much liberty in speech (Romans 14 again) but still reach propositions that answer the concern.
Is that sufficient to say we can move forward with discussion like this and take forward steps like deferring your offenses against us to the judgment we would mutually reach in focusing on these topics, and deferring your demand that we relinquish the forum to be satisfied by what remediation and self-probation we might mutually agree to in that discussion?
Andy, permanent was not listed as an option. We will be happy to interpret your comment to mean retain it as is and it will expire tomorrow, if we don't hear different.
I have been attempting to cognize your concerns in a way that results in resolution. The above is just one example of your declining to make that easy.
For another, you say "I haven't been allowed an equal hearing yet. This is what I have to listen to at my "equal" hearing you spread crap everywhere." Your immediate next comment declines to "listen to the pagan run his filthy, low IQ mouth." Logically, you're saying these threads are not an equal hearing because of a particular mild insult from CIAMM, but you immediately assert your right to engage similar particular insults. This is the very double standard you accused us of, not equality. Either request that everyone refrain from insults, or allow everyone to insult equally, or release the implied request for an equal hearing.
Because of this difficulty communicating, I'm going to need to come back with a different strategy. I will review your comments and pray about it some more.
The c/Christianity moderators have concluded that the length of u/Andy_Man45's ban should be deferred to his own preference whether to retain it or to end it early. Since he has made statements that could be interpreted as supporting either option, we will base the answer on whether he expresses his preference plainly.
Andy, most people know the difference between facts backed up by logic and subjective opinion backed up by speculation. Just before you made the post, you called CIAMM "a person who abuses their power against even mild criticism of their own religion". While we both tried to reply, you made your escalatory post. In this comment, the charge of abuse of power was a subjective opinion based on a remembered experience that you did not specify in detail, i.e., without evidence. You then charged him with the "religion" of Catholicism (as I inferred from the past context), yet without specifying that, and in error of course. This is not "telling the truth".
I already answered the charges in your deleted post. Do subjective statements comparing us to Democrats and worse count as "telling the truth"? (In the first months of c/Christianity, you might've gotten deleted for mentioning Democrats; ask u/Perun.) No. But my answering your concern here isn't advancing the debate much better than my answer to your deleted post, despite your insistence upon airing and discussion. Are you asking us to move the venue to the forum you promised not to return to? What good do those 24 anons do you that you keep citing them?
I'm concerned that you may be evidencing the adrenaline theory more than I suspected. You used to work together with us, share the load, agree to disagree on eschatology, dish it out and take it, roll with all comers. Since the fallout, which apparently had something to do with CIAMM's immense appreciation for your first Irenaeus link, I haven't been able to parse the depth behind what you're saying.
In the name of Jesus, I command the spirit of confusion to depart from this conversation and from the presence of the three of us gathered in his name.
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?
Good morning. I will retract one point that I hadn't considered: I should have said that when all the offenses are committed in public, I have conceded that there is not that much of a problem with carrying on the reconciliation in public also, if it is not disruptive to public order. The proceeding now is not disruptive to public order. Yet you are not being too responsive to our questions.
Matt. 18 is about gaining brothers: Do you desire to gain us back as brothers, or not?
Matt. 18 is about resolving offenses: Do you desire to resolve your offenses, or retain them without obeying Jesus about them?
Actually I'm pretty sure that when u/Andy_Man45 said, "Your rage reminds of the Dark Ages", he was talking about u/Lyonessrising, to whom he replied. No offense Lyoness.
Nowadays, accusing someone else of gaslighting might itself be gaslighting. The answer is always sunshine, transparency, and justice.
CIAMM deleted it because it was an escalatory personal attack. It was essentially the same content as the second thread you saw (this comment is on the third thread). He described our behavior as false witness; then he said we call his ideas false in an abuse of our power, implying we have a double standard. He called us mashers running our mouths and implied we were directed by Catholics, of which there is public evidence to the contrary, as I'm submitted to First Century Bible Church.
Our considerations were that we could delete it (for other reasons than the censorship he accuses us: namely for the dramatic increase of the attacking language, the misrepresentation, and the target being the mod board rather than a contributor); or we could retain it (and invite the similarly minded to pile on, causing more disruption to the flock). Between him and me, CIAMM made the decision to delete and ban, and we continued to discuss and observe the situation. When it became clear that his ban note could be misconstrued and would become public, we admitted our mistake and have now moved the discussion to answering his concerns. These are tricky decisions, we don't always get them perfect. Thank you for your concern and understanding.
Yes, one attack thread on our forum (immediately deleted) and then two here.