Moderating not Editorializing

The strongest personalities usually win arguments. The only thing is that I am not persuaded as of yet by the content of your argument. You seem to want me to adhere to your ethic with out a case for why your view is better than my own. I have never claimed to be elected by all who post here, I just want to hear from all who post here and I want to give the moderators a chance to establish a position as to what they view as an appropriate balance between editing and moderating.

If I am alone in my endeavor to gain more integrity for the process, then here I stand ready to make my case. But please do not attempt to silence me. That is what I found to be wanting in the first place. Why must we silence those with whom we do not agree? Why must me go along to get along? I am personally not afraid to hold a minor view, but the minority view must be heard.

 

And yet I have a higher calling that I must ultimately be true to. I am not unappreciative for your advice, but I am seriously persuaded to offer an honest exchange before I ultimately conclude that the problem is systemic to BB. I am giving BB the benefit of the doubt. I have through experience made up my mind that rsr is a rouge moderator.

Criticism is not bad, but antagonism is destructive. I do not view my role here as that of an antagonist but as that of heralding pleading for moderation in the way we handle the delicate task of overseeing these theological discussions.

I personal have put some of my heart and soul into this board in the brief time I have been here. I do not think the role of moderator is to micromanage a thread but more so as one who is a catalyst for frank yet fair discussion without crossing the line. When those who are guilty cross the line, then either deal with them individually by removing their comments entirely or close the thread altogether. I do not prefer that the entire thread be closed unless there is an outbreak of epidemic proportions, which would be the result of the majority of the posters resorting to personal attack and without an attempt to resolve the matters. In the case where there is an attempt to resolve differences or if the attacks are one sided or there is a lone vitriolic poster then the thread should not be closed. However if an individual is wrong in posting, then remove his entire post and let him reapproach the subject with a better attitude. However, to edit 90% of a post and leave it without the option to edit the post after it has been adjusted is not intellectually fair or just.