Blake Rudy / Free Will attempts mutiny.

[Logos]

Logging this here for record keeping, so that I can remove the post from the moderation queue.

I have to admit, I'm a little curious to see how people would react to this, and to see if it would backfire on him.

Additionally, it might look very transparent on our part if we allow this to go public. Bah, maybe I'm going soft.

"Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator."

Originally submitted at 08:47 a.m. on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015

RF Forum User Community Custodian Nominations & Elections?

In my opinion, there is a need for better (more involved, more comprehensive, more considerate, more judicious) policing of the forum here.  The official anonymous "moderators" are mostly disengaged from the forum, having little time to devote to really learning the character of the contributors here, or to conducting fair due-diligence in adjudication of complaints.

It seems that at least some official moderator(s) with banning authority here are prone to either bias or a kind of knee-jerk over-reaction when a complaint is lodged against a forum user.  I speak from personal experience, having last week been the target of bewilderingly hateful personal attack, but then being myself banned while the attacker remains in apparent good standing.  No warning was given prior to the ban, and I was unable to even access the forum.  No notification was offered in my abrupt absence, though my own threads were active, and I was actively participating in various topics.  My whole household was blocked from accessing the forum due to the heavy-handed IP ban that was implemented.  It was very frustrating and left me feeling very hurt and abused, and at the hand of a supposed fellow Christian no less.  Frankly, I feel strongly that there are a number of people, including some atheists/agnostics here that would surely help improve the policing and integrity of the forum compared to the official authorities alone.

My plea is that we as participants elect our own representative board for helping the official authorities better maintain the integrity of the forum.  The intent would be that we maintain a topic specifically for discussing any complaints and concerns raised about violations of forum policy and the integrity of the forum in general. We'd ask that the official "moderators" advise when they have banned any user, so that we could review the issue. And some means ought be provided users here to appeal what they view as unjust sentencing by the official authorities.  The user custodian group could be the way to do that, possibly establishing a shared gmail account that all custodians would have access to, and all users could know about as an avenue for appeal of being banned.

Thoughts?


This is not to counter the official authorities, just augment them.  It could be a very valuable resource for the community.

I nominate the following:

Got the Gift
Questions11
Trinity
JFS
Steve B
Rostos
Johan Biemans

Seconds?  More surely to follow.  Who is willing?

[Logos]

Just sent Free Will this PM, with Ethos here with me. Sorry Pathos, you're probably asleep right now.

Free Will,

Let me first apologise for my delay in responding to your concerns. As you may have seen in the prayers thread, my father was nearly killed two days ago in the recent Sydney storms, and I somewhat injured myself in getting him to safety. As you might imagine, even with my position here being a paid one, my attentions and priorities have been elsewhere.

Regarding our decisions against publishing your posts in these last few days, this has been due to ongoing conversation between myself and my staff regarding the tone and intent of your proposed thread. Additionally, I am loathe to discuss the disciplinary matters of another community member without their consent, and it has taken me this long to attain said member's consent.

Simply put, your arguments against our handling of yourself versus CrashTestAuto are unfounded. You received an official warning on March 8 for callous and disrespectful posting in Johan's thread. Later, in dealing with CrashTest, you proposed prayers and concerns for him, in a manner that was using Christian practices for the purposes of attacking and humiliating a fellow community member. One of my staff made the call to suspend you for a week, having already been officially warned, and they have my complete support in the matter.

Regarding CrashTestAuto, he (with his consent to make this information publicly known) has already been officially warned for some of his comments, and is on the verge of a suspension himself. The only reason that he has not yet been suspended is that he has been in constant PM contact with myself or other members of my team with requests for feedback in how he can better interact on the forums, identifying the sources of his frustrations etc. Simply put, he is asking us how to do better. You are admonishing us for failing to live up to your expectations, on a forum that you access for free, and that we put time and resources into maintaining.

We are paying for your privilege to publicly criticise us over matters that you are clearly uninformed on.

Now, we will remove the moderated post status from your account and allow you to call us out publicly over your opinions of our handling of the case, should you wish. My only question to you is, do you really think that this is for the best?

Regards,

Michael.

Reasonable Faith Online Community Manager.

[Logos]

He's going down swinging, lads. 1/2

So you are saying that you've reviewed the pertinent interaction between Crash Test and myself, and are supporting my banning and treatment since, but are excusing the behavior of Crash Test, because he communicates with moderators about it?  Gee, wouldn't that be nice?

Some things aren't important.

I hope you heal well and your dad recovers fully.

[Logos]

2/2

Dear Michael,

I would like to try to clear up another misperception.  The first being the woeful misreading of my intent in the posts used to justify my banning.  My intent there in both was nothing but kind and genuine.  And the same is true now.  Obviously I'm not being sensitive to how my intended meaning might be misread.  I can work on that.  Do you think the moderators might work on giving me the benefit of doubt in the future, instead of treating me like a child?

You think I want to "call out" the moderators publicly?  <sigh>  Is it not evident from my proposed new thread that I am seeking positive action, not any kind of blaming?  I abhor negativity and blaming. 

Is it not informative that I don't report anyone, ever?  I let the insults roll off my back.  Turn the other cheek.

More than anything, I'm hurt and confused.  Yet you condone the way I was treated.

I'd really appreciate the chance to thoughtfully dialogue with forum staff. 

Is there any chance you or they could answer my concerns?

I'll resend under separate PM to all.

Will

[Logos]

I've PM'd JFS and bdSimon to ask if if they can forward me the messages they got from Will before I respond. I want to know how many people he's spoken to calling us "apparently inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious (and now rude/unresponsive)".

[Ethos]

No, it's not evident that you are seeking positive action and not blaming. Look at your choice of words! Our decision to suspend you was justified. You didn't like the decision. Too bad.

Ugh... the victim card is real.

Just venting here. =P

[Logos]

[Logos]

Oh yes. His original PM essay:

Dear Philos,

I meant to but neglected to include you in the original distribution list for the following, just previously sent to Logos, Pathos, and Ethos. I've also noticed and corrected some formatting errors, so am resending to all you fine custodians of the forum. 

Dear RF Moderator Team,

I need your help.  If I am to continue participating on the RF forum, I need to understand the forum policies and how they will be enforced.  From my recent experience, the moderation of the forum appears inconsistent with stated policy, as well as arbitrary and capricious.  A number of issues are of concern:

1) Justification for my recent one week ban was in error.  In fact I was abiding by your stated policy,  "Calling any position 'bigoted' for attempting to shut down any discourse on a given subject will not be considered bigotry, as it is a correct use of the word." (what I did) and also that "From here on out, we will revert to a 'warn/suspend/ban' three strikes policy"

2) Even had my banning been true to forum policy, I was not given any warning as per your stated policy.  My household IP was just banned.  Everyone in my home was blocked from accessing and reading the forum.   Treat others as you would be treated?  Can you not just block posting by username only? 

3) When banned, access to the forum and its messaging utilities are blocked; there is no available means of communication with forum authorities, no recourse for appeal or clarification, just nothing.  This is not a thoughtful way to run a forum.  Some recourse for contacting forum authority ought be provided active and thoughtful contributors to the forum in such cases as mine, where the user has been a longstanding positive and valued participant on the forum.  Treat others as you would be treated?

4) Banned users often just disappear from the forum, no explanation.  At a minimum, the forum community in the applicable thread(s) ought to be notified of the banning.  It's just incredibly rude to fail to inform the forum when banning someone who has been actively participating in popular topics of discussion, especially when the topic(s) were initiated by the banned user.  Such a lack of common consideration is not in keeping with treating others as you would be treated.  Ask yourselves why you might be hesitant to do so? 

5) RF authorities are all anonymous and that always tends to lead to more heavy-handedness.  As such, at a minimum, excepting the most blatant and egregious violations, banning ought only be enacted after achieving a consensus among forum moderators. Establish an RF Forum Board Room so-to-speak.  This helps prevent knee-jerk type responses to complaints and mitigates possible personal bias of a single moderator.

6) Consistency and due-diligence in moderating are paramount to maintaining forum integrity, and are lacking on the RF forum.  Specific to my case: User "Crash Test" after having repeatedly and egregiously violated forum policy, at one point stating that "You are not a Christian.  You are a bigot.  More specifically, you're a nasty bigot who relishes the suffering inflicted on vulnerable minorities by enacting this 'brilliant' plan." continued participation on the forum in good standing. How do you explain that in light of my own banning, the justification being my comments to Mr. Crash Test that "We're not bigots.  You are." exactly in accordance with your stated policy.  The action of the moderator responsible for my banning is thus obviously inconsistent, capricious and arbitrary.  This is unacceptable.  I feel abused, misunderstood and unjustly treated.

7) Closing active threads due to the bickering or misbehavior of a few individuals thus penalizing all the many users who are participating is rude and inconsiderate.  Address the problem posters and leave the thread open.  Treat others as you would be treated?

Concerning my own banning and my assertion that it was unjust:

To wit, please first note your own publicly stated policy:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/freedom-of-religion-under-attack-indiana-6029762.msg1275387362.html#msg1275387362

Specifically note the parts where you stated that "Calling any position 'bigoted' for attempting to shut down any discourse on a given subject will not be considered bigotry, as it is a correct use of the word." (what I did) and also that "From here on out, we will revert to a 'warn/suspend/ban' three strikes policy"

Despite publicly stating the above policy, one week ago, absent any warning, my posting and even reading privileges on the RF forum were denied via IP ban; my entire household was blocked from accessing the RF forum with no prior warning whatsoever.  Offered as justification was this post:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/brilliant-solution-to-being-coerced-to-serve-celebrations-homosexual-behavior-6030007.msg1275387199.html#msg1275387199

specifically my comments, "Please pray for Crash.  He may be about to hit bottom and will need the love of Christ.  We love you Crash.  Really.  We're not bigots.  You are."

From my view, I had properly employed the observation "We're not bigots. You are." after being myself accused of bigotry, the clear intent being "to shut down the discourse on the given subject."  My intent was truly loving, thought I can see how that might have been uncharitably misunderstood. 

As evidence, please see the following posts to which I was responding and the pertinent excerpts from them:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/brilliant-solution-to-being-coerced-to-serve-celebrations-homosexual-behavior-6030007.msg1275387130.html#msg1275387130

Oh, and in case this wasn't blunt enough.  Let me be perfectly clear.  The behaviour described in the OP is, in a very accurate usage of the term, pure bigotry.  No excuses of obeying your conscience.  No excuses of obeying your religion.  If you're willing to betray your religion and then hurt people anyway, particularly if you're going to call it "brilliant", then you are a bad person.  In this case, due to the target, a bigot.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/brilliant-solution-to-being-coerced-to-serve-celebrations-homosexual-behavior-6030007.msg1275387173.html#msg1275387173

... Holding sincere religious views on homosexuality that one approaches with love and compassion is not bigoted.  You, however, have neither the sincerity, nor the compassion, to escape such a label.

Both the above posts by user "Crash Test" preceded my response to him that was grounds for the IP ban against me.  Then soon after my response, user Crash Test posted the following, yet has inexplicably continued participating on the forum in good standing:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/brilliant-solution-to-being-coerced-to-serve-celebrations-homosexual-behavior-6030007.msg1275387200.html#msg1275387200

Look, speaking to you is a waste of time, so I'll end it here.  But no, you are not in any way suggesting maintaining the integrity of your Christian faith.  If you think catering a same sex marriage is immoral, then any plan that begins with catering a same sex marriage is clearly not maintaining the Christian faith.  If you DON'T think catering a same sex marriage is immoral, then all of this whining about having your morals violated if you cater a Christian wedding is clearly a load of crap.

You are not a Christian.  You are a bigot.  More specifically, you're a nasty bigot who relishes the suffering inflicted on vulnerable minorities by enacting this "brilliant" plan.  I do not hate Christians.  I do not want Christians to lose their livelihoods.  Any disdain I express in this thread is entirely directed at the thoroughly un-Christ-like and frankly cruel behaviour expressed by you and tacitly supported by a depressing number of other posters.

I respectfully and humbly request that the RF forum moderator team jointly review the above and provide an explanation for what seems like at worst erroneous, at best inconsistent and capricious enforcement of stated forum policy.

In response to my banning, and because you offer zero means for contacting forum moderators outside of the forum, I emailed my questions/concerns to the reasonablefaith.org webmaster and asked that he/she forward them to Logos.  I received no reply of any kind.  I also messaged your Facebook account, also no reply. Setting yourselves out of reach from appeal is not treating others as you would be treated.

I'd very much appreciate a reply to my concerns, specifically those numbered 1 through 7.  I also request that you remove the current requirement for moderator approval of my posts, and I'd like to know why hostile atheist user Crash Test is allowed such leeway. 

I wish you peace and grace in Christ,

Free Will

[Logos]

Between him having already... I had started this as a paragraph, but let's make this a list instead:

• been suspended under Philos
• creating "Banned Will" to circumnavigate the suspension and publicly challenge the decision
• his comments in Johan's testimony thread
• his refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing in that matter
• his comments in calling this team "inconsistent... arbitrary and capricious"
• sending out messages to forum users giving his one sided angry rant
• attempting to publicly call in to question the performance and integrity of this team
• attempting to make the moderation team accountable to the community, rather than the RF board
• demonstrating a complete lack of empathy, charity, or willingness to submit to anyone in authority

I think we have a decent case to institute a permanent ban here.

[Ethos]

You can add "Constantly making Jesus and his followers look bad."

[Logos]

Banned Will

I just ran a search for when Will created "Banned Will", and his email address was BadWeatherBikers.com@gmail.com

Who just mentioned that forum a bunch of times over the last half hour? Who is listed as one of the custodians of the BWB forum? Blake Rudy.

Something is going on here.

[Logos]

I called Blake back, and he sounded genuinely surprised, so I'm not sure if Will (whoever he is) is using Blake, or Blake is playing us.

[Logos]

Bit more work, because this is bugging me.

Blake's original username was "Blake1960". It currently has a 'guest' status, which means we can't open it to check its details. I'll bug Andy and Beau again to get into the old forums.

I did a Google search for "Blake Rudy Kilgore". Either we are dealing with a sick individual with a fetish for horse sex (I wish I was making that up), or someone really has it in for poor Mr Rudy, making parody accounts under his name, and following him from forum to forum.

[Pathos]

I can only pop in to say the link between Banned Will (Free Will) and Blake Again is sufficient to enact a perma-ban, in my mind.

This based on the fact that they are both linked to the other forum, and their similar posting style (which Ruben previously noted).

I think it's too much of a coincidence to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Logos]

I'm going to go ahead and build a timeline of what we know, just to back up what we're going with. What I've seen already is pretty damning. This just keeps getting better and better.

April 07, 2014 - "Blake" account suspended. (Account since deleted, but ban log remains)
April 07, 2014 - "Free Will" account created.
April 14, 2015 - "Free Will" suspended.
April 17, 2015 - "Blake Again" account created.

I have reason to believe that "Way/Wey" might also be Blake Rudy.