Castin

Don't take this as a "personal attack" but to be bluntly honest, you are really a moderator in name only. The other mods rarely allow you to make decisions and even then only when all three of them are forced to recuse themselves. You don't even get the little crown next to your name like they do. You are like a "half-mod" at best.

So if a user criticizes YOU as being too "heavy handed" then I think we can safely dismiss that opinion as being too flatly absurd to even justify any meaningful response. It's like blaming a school crossing guard for sending too many black men to jail.

Furthermore, take note of the user who said this; Lots of forum activity, minimal debate participation.

Summary;

As your own examples prove, the mod team clearly doesn't understand the real complaints that are coming from the community. We don't want "less" moderation. We want more consistent and appropriate moderation. The quality of debates and discourse needs to improve, users who exclusively troll the forums without any other meaningful participation need to be addressed and a better CoC needs to be written (and moderators need to actually obey it).

Who has more authority?

I mock people when I don't think they're worth my time. Not everyone is susceptible to logic and reason. Some people are ideological zealots, of which are never going to consider alternative points of view. It's not my modus operandi to mock and humiliate everyone I encounter (just search for all the threads I've made), but the best tool against zealotry is ridicule.

I also match the tone of my interlocutor. If he/she starts flinging insults, I'll match them with interest. No point in bringing logic to a mud-slinging match.

You're quirky to the point of being weird.

A few bells and whistles missing doesn't bother me much because while DArt might lack a spellchecker it does have a castin!  

Getti g banned for insulting a mod who has openly stated people have a free pass to attack him. Taking a similar stance as what airmax took. Atleast openly taki g that stance despite using a fanboy of his to do his bidding

It is impossible to prove a negative

Whover invented that adage shouldhave been strangled at birth!

There are unprovable statements, but being negative or positive has nothing to with it.  Consider 'Unicorns exist' and 'unicorns don't exist'.

"If I'm ever banned, please initiate a very large hyper-dramatic public thread demanding answers. Infer that whatever answer you get is a lie. Then accuse the mods of stealing your sandwich. Thank you in advance." -Raltar

[Source]

Yo, it's almost Christmas. Can we all cool down the controversy until after the New Year? Like, some sort of truce until Jan. 2nd?

It's not a holiday without the family argument

I'll be inactive for a bit over holidays. It is only 1 day of me after today of this. Then I am basically out of your hair that entire week bc of social life, studying, etc.

 I like the idea that Mike floated a while ago about people being able to form 'private threads' which were invite only, and in which the thread starter acts as a sort of thread mod. 

I actually have suggested several similar ideas, to at least make blocking trolls easier, and have not seen much traction. I don't know if the site owner is really considering features like this, but even if he is, such features don't seem like a top priority.

What is ligma?

...one of the most heated complaints from members is that mods are heavy-handed and oppressive tyrants...

Again; I already pointed out that I don't buy this claim. Mods keep saying that people make this complaint, but I can't find anyone who actually IS making this complaint, other than a handful of obviously simplistic trolls from a few months back.

The real complaint is a lack of consistency. Some rules are enforced, some aren't. Some users get punished, some don't. Some posts get deleted, some don't. Sometimes moderators say the CoC is the only set of rules, some times they make up stuff from outside the CoC. Some people seem to get smacked down for minor stuff, while others are able to run amok with obvious trolling as their only contribution to the site. Emphasis on the forums is wayyyyy too heavy, while debates seem entirely unmoderated, comment sections dissolve into borderline psychotic hissy-fits and votes get randomly deleted for subjective reasons. The whole site is a s--tshow of random and unpredictable enforcement in a sea of endless trolling.

I laid out what I believe the objections we all agree upon are, and as of yet nobody has disputed any of those, nor has any convincing rebuttal from any moderator made an appearance.

but the site isn't really finished or officially "up"

But how many active members can the internet forum/debate model actually handle?   I'd say its actually very few.  The structure works well for a dozen or so members, but it won't scale very well.

To a mild degree, he has a point. When someone big wants a leniency in modding, the community slowly trends to favor the leaning or whatever side the popular is on

Want me to give case study examples or actually you don't get what I mean?

No one will ever be happy with a bunch of hard headed people on one site

If you delete it, you destroy evidence.

If you really care about that (and that isn't the argument bsh1 gave), then implement a moderator tool to "censor" posts which violate the rules. The general public would be restricted from seeing the inappropriate content, while moderators would still retain access to said content and could use it as "evidence" later if needed.

The commentators have a few different approaches:

1. They are those who were giants (Anakim) either in physical stature or in bravery/might

2. They are those who caused others to fall (n-f-l is a root for falling) through their misdeeds

3. They are those whose size and strength made others cower/fall

4. They are those who, themselves, fell, because they were led by their lusts and were lesser than generations before

The Malbim is very clear, though, that the entire notion of "fallen from heaven" (as another commentator puts it "semidei") is wrong.

The idea of fallen angels derived from Jewish Enochic pseudepigraphy or the assumption that the "sons of God" (בני האלהים‬) mentioned in Genesis 6:1–4 are angels.[2] Some scholars consider it most likely that the Jewish tradition of fallen angels predates, even in written form, the composition of Gen 6:1–4.[3][4][a] In the period immediately preceding the composition of the New Testament, some sects of Judaism, as well as many Christian Church Fathers, identified the "sons of God" (בני האלהים‬) of Genesis 6:1–4 as fallen angels.[6]

I take the view it refers to the kings and important people of the time. 

It cannot refer to angels - as this would violate the creation ordinance of kind after kind. angels and humans cannot produce infants. 

Hence, it must refer to something else. 

The kings of the world - at the time - were giants among men. They existed before Noah and after Noah.