dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 04 2012,13:21) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24) |
Some time later Clive Hayden, who moderated UD during that period (but seems to be missing in action for the last six months or so), entered a discussion on moderation at UD that arose at Biologos. You can read his post-hoc rationalizations here. The discussion starts on comment page 19 and continues to the end of the thread. |
(***esoterica warning***)
In reading through your link to Biologos and Clive Hayden's non-defense of his use of the ban hammer, I'm struck by this post of his, near the end of the thread:
| Quote | Clive Hayden - #22717
July 20th 2010
Let me clarify. When I’m aware that someone is a sock puppet, I have, in the past, allowed them to continue posting, granted that they are sincerely there for a sincere discussion. Which, it should be noted and remembered, I do not have to allow even for this leniency. <b>So when I check elsewhere and see that they are not, I use my discretion and ban them again. The ban is fully justified by the fact that they’ve been banned before; I need no other justification.</b> I have allowed sock puppets such as Reciprocating Bill and Nakashima to post comments, though I knew they were sock puppets, in hopes that they would be sincere about their motives, which is, in my opinion, pretty considerate of me, so when I see the way they mock and chide UD and it’s participants at After the Asylum Closes, even though their posting is a privilege considering they’ve been banned before, I ban them for being a sock puppet that should’ve stayed banned in the first place. My justification is that they have already been banned; I don’t need any other justification. If anything I ought to be thanked by you who’ve been banned for allowing a known banned person to continue to post. I am under no obligation to do that. |
(my emphasis)
Those of us raised as Christians can spot the parallel with the Christian doctrine on damnation. As it happens, I'm exchanging emails with a Christian relative just now who is reminding me that God doesn't need a relevant reason for damning, a particular incident or pattern. We are "pre-damned" under the curse of Adam.
This is the theology that Clive lives under. God already "has him", per Adam, and God doesn't need any more reason, beyond that. He can be as arbitrary as he likes, as all God's kid's are - pre-damed. It can't go wrong, it can only possibly result in leniency or clemency on occasion.
And the Clive-God now has you. You are "pre-damned" per the original sin assigned under DaveScot (never mind the caprice evident in that incident). You can't complain, because Clive's caprice can't reflect badly on him, you're "damned" to begin with. You really should thank him (and he at one point asked for this) for just the grace of letting you live as long as you did. It's not a problem, his arbitrary whims, if they are grounded in your pre-damnation. The only thing that can happen is glorious mercy, a touch of leniency which you don't deserve.
I couldn't miss the parallels. Christians shrug at the vicious pettiness and caprice of Yahweh. All men deserve damnation as the baseline, anyway, so man has no cause for protest. Clive's just going all Yahweh on you and others. It's good to be God, I guess.
That post, anyway, clarifies and explains a lot of the UD moderating craziness. The critics all begin with "deserving bannination", and so there really isn't anything to mitigate the impulse to censor or ban. You (and let's be clear, I really mean *I*, somewhere in the future) should have been banned at the outset. Banning later, for any reason isn't unfair or hypocritical in their view, it's just a little less "unjustified grace" shown to you than otherwise might have been shown. |
It remains that this is post hoc excuse making by Hayden. It is hilarious that he thinks "I can be arbitrary because I am the piss pot God of UD" is a valid excuse for childish behavior, such as banning those that reveal his favorites (StephenB) to be whited sepulchres. Hayden banned Diffaxial and Nakashima before knowing they were socks for previously banned individuals.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
