Moderating not Editorializing

I just want to say how disappointed I am with the job rsr has been doing as a moderator on this board. He has closed at least the last three threads that have been closed. He just got done butchering the case for a closed communion thread. Is anyone else here bothered by the editing that he has done on the closed communion thread. I think that to warn those involved they need to change the tone is one thing but editing the posts to the extent that he is out right a violation of the trust that posters place in Baptist Board. If a thread is that bad then ban the guilty parties or close the thread entirely but to go back and remove 80% of a post and think it in any way represents the initial intent of the poster is ridiculous. I would like to see if we can find some type of an explanation from the given moderators on this board for this behavior. If this is the policy of Baptist Board, then I for one am not sure that I will in good conscious submit myself to the tyrannical rule of a narrow minded editor the likes of rsr.

One Man's Opinion for what it is worth!

 

I want to know if I am alone in my concerns, I have already made my mind up that rsr has overstepped his given role as moderator in my humble opinion.

 

Am I not entitled to make a point?

The people that I am interesting in hearing from are the ones who by in large put their hearts and souls in the discussions we enjoy while in here. I am a man of the people. I also want to give the moderators a chance to explain to these people what they view as their role in editorializing vs. directing the flow of discourse through constructive suggestions. Shouldn't an attempt be made to redirect before there is an outright takeover of a thread with a subsequent radical editorializing of the content?

 

I have personally witness three thread closed with no prior warning. He did edit substantially the prior to this latest one. Unless he is the official moderator for closing down threads, the others do not seem to get as heavily involved.

BTW, there were no names being crossed back and forth at one another. Name calling would be wrong, but are people not entitled to disagree.

In that thread in particular a poster came in espousing kenosis christological principles. I explained that that was a type of heresy and why, to which that entire post was 95% edited. Can we not expose heresy in a theological forum? That is what drove me over the edge is when he edited what was a very fair treatment of a clear heresy.

If we cannot stand for biblical principles in this forum then what is the point. Can we also not explain that Islam is a false religion? Why then when someone wants to devoid the earthly Jesus of his divinity, can I not explain why that is a heresy? That is just an example of one the discussions that were edited.

Of course once the entire post is gone he can just say, well they were name calling. That was hardly the case.

Some of you have made your point that you are not comfortable with open conflict. I have heard your concern. But I assure I think this will help BB in the long run.

 

This is a good example of the type of exchange that was edited. Nept was one of the main detractors. Should his above statement constitute name calling? I do not think so. Is his comment given in order to advance the chosen topic, maybe not but unless he calls me something offensive he has a right to his opinion. Thanks for sharing nept.:thumbs:

 

Here is another good example of the type of detractor that is typically silenced in the process of hashing through the various discussion we have in here. What do you think, is Bro Tony's post a violation of BB policy? I don't think so. Granted he is making it aweful personal now but he is trying to hold a pastor to a higher standard, which I applaud.:applause:

My typical response to someone like Bro Tony is this...

Bro Tony maybe you need to consider that this a thread and not a church, therefore it is not a one to one comparison. So I am not necessarily bound by church polity in here. Secondly, you really do not know if I have PM rsr or not, so you are assuming I have not, which is pointly troubling. Third you need to read Matthew 7 before you make such statements.

And when you are done reading that try Romans 14.

 

You are making assumptions here... I just warned Bro Tony about that and what I said to him applies to you as well.

Moreover, just because you gave me counsel does not mean that I consider it to be good counsel. The priesthood of the believer is an important Baptist doctrine. It keeps those over us from running roughshod over the basic autonomy of the individual and collective as the people.

I am not denying anyone a fair defense. I am offering any and all of the moderators a chance to enlighten those with whom they are given the responsibility to oversee.

Besides, what I am doing is entirely biblical. 1 Timothy 5 suggests that when an elder persists in error based on more than one witness to rebuke him openly.