Shelter. the reply option is missing

[kin hell]

Can somebody explain why I can see no reply button for any of the Shelter threads?

Elsewhere it was suggested that the Admins are limiting the access to those atheists perceived to be "nice".

Please tell me this is not so.

[One Above All]

The admins apparently are limiting access to the Shelter; the "nice" thing was just my guess.

[kin hell]

thanks Luci

have the parameters for the access been posted anywhere?

[magicmiles]

feel free to PM me if you wanted to contribute to the "Gut feeling" thread, anybody.

[kin hell]

feel free to PM me if you wanted to contribute to the "Gut feeling" thread, anybody.

Be careful of subverting the Shelter mm.



I have a gut feeling that I do not like undisclosed operational mechanisms that "must" be based on arbitrary personal judgements with no open court of address.

[jeremy0]

I'm fine with just reading it, actually - it is nice for me to be able to see a well-put brief and discussion..  I don't personally belong posting in the shelter, anyway..

[kin hell]

I'm fine with just reading it, actually - it is nice for me to be able to see a well-put brief and discussion..  I don't personally belong posting in the shelter, anyway..

How does your reply answer any point raised in the OP jeremy?

I am not fine about this, and your unthinking acquiescence to somebodies untested and unproven imposed judgement upon you, just says negative things about you, and about them.

Obviously this is an issue with me, so nice innocuous statements regarding ones willingness to unquestioningly accept being fucking labelled one way or another, are probably only going to stoke the ire.

[jeremy0]

my apologies - I never understood these rules anyway..  AFAIK, the reason we don't have a reply button is so we're not mistakingly posting in a restricted area.  AFAIK, the admins want a nice place for theists to argue without getting beaten, smeared, and battered on.  I think it's a sound idea, and as I usually am quite blunt and heated at times, it's not a place for me to post.  Which I understand, hence my answer to your OP..

Also, from reading through it, seems to be excluded to more 'veteran' members of the forum, who have posted 2,000+ times, are very used to this sort of thing, etc.  It's a learning experience and a testing ground for all of us..

[kin hell]

my apologies - I never understood these rules anyway..  AFAIK, the reason we don't have a reply button is so we're not mistakingly posting in a restricted area.

My point is all about the restriction. I question everything single thing about the restriction.

 

AFAIK, the admins want a nice place for theists to argue without getting beaten, smeared, and battered on.

....and again I ask just who is deciding who can or cannot be trusted to abide by the Shelters very specific rules?

Also, from reading through it, seems to be excluded to more 'veteran' members of the forum, who have posted 2,000+ times, are very used to this sort of thing, etc.  It's a learning experience and a testing ground for all of us..

4000+ posts and I've been excluded, so that last observation is obviously incorrect and some other unstated parameter is in play.

And don't get me wrong this is not just about me, this is about the hidden mechanics that essentially make personal judgements that I find remarkably unacceptable whether or not I fell within, or without those hidden guidelines.

[Asmoday]

I'm fine with just reading it, actually - it is nice for me to be able to see a well-put brief and discussion..  I don't personally belong posting in the shelter, anyway..

Though having the ability to reply in a forum does not mean you have to participate in the threads. You can just read them without jumping in yourself.

On the other hand, without the ability to reply one is forced to watch a discussion go on even if one would like to participate. Access to the Shelter subforum should be regulated based on behavior in the sub-forum itself (giving general access to all forum members and subsequently excluding those who don't follow the rules of the subforum) but not by excluding some/most people by default for no apparent reason while granting others access also for no apparent reason.

[One Above All]

I think the point is to restrict access to those of us who can keep a cool head and not call the theists on the BS you know they're gonna be spouting in there. If that is the case, I agree that restrictions are necessary, although I still feel uncomfortable with the admins judging everyone on the site instead of asking through a mass PM or something.

Note: I am comfortable with their decision regarding my access to the Shelter. There's only so much BS I can take.

[Alzael]

The reason some are locked out is largely because when it was tried the first time most of the members here couldn't figure out simple rules like only two replies to a post. Hal almost blew an aggression inhibitor at how many people couldn't read a simple set of instructions.

So it was decided to try it with a smaller group of people.

As for why particular people were chosen or not chosen, take it up with the others. I've had nothing to do with this Shelter idea and stopped caring long ago.

[kin hell]

The reason some are locked out is largely because when it was tried the first time most of the members here couldn't figure out simple rules like only two replies to a post. Hal almost blew an aggression inhibitor at how many people couldn't read a simple set of instructions.

So it was decided to try it with a smaller group of people.

So where does this information come from? I'm sorry if I missed it posted somewhere, but I did ask.

As for why particular people were chosen or not chosen, take it up with the others. I've had nothing to do with this Shelter idea and stopped caring long ago.

So why involve yourself and ask me if I was being oversensitive about it?

[EV]

Members who were invited to post in the Shelter were PM'd. I was invited and have a message, but I'm not going to post it here because I think there's a rule about not posting PM's without consent.

The bit relevant here is that it basically said that because nobody read the rules, they shut it down to the public, and are allowing people in if they have:

• A posting history consistent with their idea of not smashing theists- people unsuitable I'd imagine would be Lucifer (as he has already pointed out), and possibly Omen and Velkyn
• Read the rules. This is what annoyed HAL.

It's fairly slow atm, but that's to be expected as we only have 2 or 3 posting theists on here. I think it's more of an experiment at the moment, but hopefully it'll take off. If we have everybody posting in the Shelter, then theists just won't bother posting in the main bit for risk of getting ripped apart. If there is a drive to debate the more experienced and vicious members, they can go out having built their confidence first, and it may not exasperate everyone so much.

That's how I see it anyway, obviously I am not a mod, but I'd say that's a fairly good approximation of the reasons

Hope this helps!

[Alzael]

So why involve yourself and ask me if I was being oversensitive about it?

Because you were ranting like a nut so I thought I'd delicately point that out.

[kin hell]

I suggest to the numbnuts running the experiment then, that a more reasoned approach would've been to start a thread in which all atheist members were given the chance to opt in or out of the Shelter board.

Wherein the choice to opt in is made with a statement of full understanding of the Shelter's function and rules and an indication by the optee that they will abide by that boards specific rule set.

For anyone to be arbitrarily excluded presents exactly the offensive personal "judgement" that I find very hard to accept as tolerable behaviour.

And if anyone thinks I am making these comments solely due to the obvious personal slight I may well feel, then I suggest you trawl my posting history and take notice that I am a consistent advocate of just, fair, sensible, and open interpersonal relationships.



Lastly I will say on a personal level  fuck you for limiting me to your petty and inaccurate presumptions, and doubly fuck you for your assumption of parental authority by not even making this forum experiment accessible to those you arbitrarily deem beyond the pale. The baseless presumption is either a staggering display of social incompetence or a complicit allowance of power corrupting for the sake of ease in the experiment.


Please note that any included ad hominem is just me pronouncing an arbitrary personal judgement, and of course, as has been indicated, should not be taken personally.
I suggest respectfully that if anyone feels any emotional response to said behaviour on my part, then they are just being a little oversensitive.

[One Above All]

kin hell, while I agree that you have the right to be upset, I think you're beginning to exaggerate. The admins did what they thought was best for the experiment. This is not power corruption or anything of the sort. It's a simple "mistake". They (yup, even HAL) are human.

[kin hell]

kin hell, while I agree that you have the right to be upset, I think you're beginning to exaggerate. The admins did what they thought was best for the experiment. This is not power corruption or anything of the sort. It's a simple "mistake". They (yup, even HAL) are human.

Luci if you read the post accurately you will notice that the power corruption was one of two choices offered, it was either that or b-grade social ineptitude.

[One Above All]

Luci if you read the post accurately you will notice that the power corruption was one of two choices offered, it was either that or b-grade social ineptitude.

I did. I meant[1] to imply that that's also not the cause. It[2] was a simple "mistake". Nothing more.

1.	And failed.
2.	What the admins did.

[kin hell]

Luci if you read the post accurately you will notice that the power corruption was one of two choices offered, it was either that or b-grade social ineptitude.

I did. I meant to[1] imply that that's also not the cause. It's a simple "mistake". Nothing more.

1.	And failed.

fair enough............

EDIT ADDED but I will say that as a mistake in not recognising the potential effect of behind the scenes unpromulgated exclusionary divisions, you could not have a better example of social unawareness.

[shnozzola]

Could someone with permission ask Jane in this Safe Zone thread:                   
                 http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22497.0.html
to explain what she thinks happened in the story of "Jesus feeds the 5000".   

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Could someone with permission ask Jane in this Safe Zone thread:                   
                 http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22497.0.html
to explain what she thinks happened in the story of "Jesus feeds the 5000".

Well, as long as  I am online, I will answer it here. I am not entirely sure I understand your question. Are you asking me if I believe that this miracle literally happened? If so, the answer is yes.

[shnozzola]

He brought forward a young boy who had five small loaves of barley bread and two small fish. Even so, Andrew wondered how that could help.

Jesus ordered the crowd to sit down in groups of fifty. He took the five loaves, looked up to heaven, gave thanks to God his Father, and passed them to his disciples to be distributed. He did the same with the two fish.

Everyone—men, women and children—ate as much as they wanted! Jesus miraculously multiplied the loaves and fishes so there was more than enough. Then he told his disciples to gather the leftovers so nothing was wasted. They collected enough to fill 12 baskets.

The crowd was so overwhelmed by this miracle that they understood Jesus was the prophet who had been promised. Knowing they would want to force him to become their king, Jesus fled from them.

How do you think it physically happened?  Perhaps you haven't delved into it as far as I have - maybe I was (a bit-  )obsessed with this story.   

 As a Christian, for a long time I debated with myself what this story meant.  It would require the five loaves and the 2 fish to be divided up pretty small to get to each group of 50.  Do the baskets kept refilling, or do you think all of a sudden a huge amount of food appeared in front of Jesus?   How important do you think the magic is here?  I think people dwelling on the magic miss the simple point of this story.  Although this particular story isn't necessarily a parable, this is what I think happened, and like is usually the case, interpretation of these biblical stories runs the gamut.

 Anyway, I think these people listening to this man Jesus had never been moved so profoundly to care about each other.  5000 people gathered probably had all kinds of bread and fish, with family members sending each other to bring more, when they saw what Jesus intended to do, and after hearing Jesus, they simply could barely eat much wondering if their brother or sister in the gathering had enough.  This is my version (SPAG - I know)  of the miracle, and I wish the world had someone today that could cut through the hatred and do something similar - idealistic - yes, guilty.    Jane, do you think my version lessens the miracle?

[ParkingPlaces]

shcnozzola, things are drifting off subject here.

Plain Jane chose to discuss parables in The Shelter, so this question would be off subject there as well. Since she has started responding here, she may well continue if you start a new thread. If you do, feel free to put a link in this thread so we can find it.

[shnozzola]

Sorry, man, I do that too much.

[Brakeman]

So some unnamed admin decided for us if we can abide by rules or not, even though we haven't yet committed any offense?

That's RACIST! 

[One Above All]

Many did, which is why HAL(?) got pissed(?) and removed all access to it. IMO it was the right thing to do, since people weren't listening to his(?) warnings.

[Brakeman]

Many did, which is why HAL(?) got pissed(?) and removed all access to it. IMO it was the right thing to do, since people weren't listening to his(?) warnings.

So  privilege is removed from me because of others' behavior, yet still other's are continued to be granted this privilege.. On the basis of a nameless person's opinion of my postings in other areas where my behavior was not in question?

That's kind of like writing a black man a speeding ticket in a 20 MPH school zone because someone saw a black man on the interstate driving the posted speed limit. 

I don't like this new "experiment."

[One Above All]

You should wait for the admins to reply to this thread so that you can take it up with them.