Campaign Speech

Z

Zero

Banned
Banned
It appears that some of the campaign speeches might get lost in the day to day replies of this forum. So that all may find those speeches I think that we should make them sticky and combine them so that they are easy to find and not spread out across the topics of the forum.

At present Zero, Tyler, Asguard, Thor, Xev, Cris, GB-GIL Trans-global, CounslerCoffee and James R are the candidates to date.
***wet1***


Greetings to you all of sciforums Religion subforum.


I have been religious, so I completely understand how theists feel. Right?

Not really. You are a unique person. The fine blend of acquired knowledge and inborn talents that you possess is unique to you alone. There are far too many variables in this world for any person to claim to know all of the ones that apply to you.
In that sense, I really can’t claim to know what you think or feel. No one can.

However, I can honestly tell you that I do make constant efforts to understand people. I try hard, by utilizing my intuition to correct the flaws of my knowledge. The flaws in question are prejudices.

True, prejudices are ugly, but they are an understandable vice. In the good old days when mankind scampered around in animal skins and clutched wooden spears, such methods of instinctive pattern recognition were necessary to survival. There simply was no time or energy to spare on puzzling over whether it was the right thing to do or not; there was only life or death.

Now, it is no longer necessary. Our species has dominion over all others, and our survival no longer depends on such devices. There is no longer any excuse for prejudice, save unbreakable habit. We must strive to overcome it by constant mental effort.

I have been religious once. I attended a Presbyterian junior high school, and I grew up with Catholics. My family is slightly Buddhist. Now I am atheist. I realize that some of you are not well disposed toward atheism. I also realize that some atheists are not well disposed toward theism, either. I will not try to be defensive; all I will say is that I am only atheist because I have found that it works for me, and any effort to try to proselytize someone is solely based on self-righteous prejudice. There is no proof that one’s religious view is superior to anyone else’s.

Though I have my prejudices, I strive to break them down. As moderator, I will cooperate with my moderating partner to guide the Religion subforum toward that general direction. The Religion subforum has recently been steeped in prejudice. It needs a pair, theist and atheist, to guide it back to the place of intelligent debate and discussion it once was. The fact that I have prejudices of my own to overcome will help my performance. The difference that sets some apart is that they recognize their shortcomings. I recognize and freely admit that I have serious flaws of my own.

In this light, I ask that you vote me for moderator. As an atheist who freely admits his transgressions of close-mindedness, and who will strive to overcome them and apply the lessons learned, I propose myself as a worthy candidate. I will consider the general will of the people above all others in the Religion forums in my decisions to help me guide it. So help me, people.

 
Last edited:
You know it!

Hello, Religion Forum!

Are we excited?

I can't hear you!

That's better.

As your supreme lea... err... moderator, I plan to be fair, even when I don't like doing it. I won't delete posts just because they're posted by Theists, or because they're sort of stupid, like the topic "jesus-blood".

I will only remove content that is offensive as well as clearly not nessecary to that persons' communicating their ideas.

Also, I will be sure to take open suggestions from the people (you) before and after I am voted in.

I won't be irresponsible... I promise. That means that I don't delete Whatmuscles' posts.

Oh, and I won't block anybody.

Also, I have much more time to do my job than any of our other lose... err... I mean candidates have, so I won't do a job from far away like some of our moderators do.

I won'd delete posts just because somebody asks me to. That isn't fair.

Also, I'll give tax cuts to the poor, and raise taxes for the ri... uhm... oops, wrong campaign :eek:

So, in conclusion, tonight was wonderful!

Be sure to vote for me!

THANKYOU RELIGION FORUMS!!!
 
I'd like to see other campagining speeches by the other candidates...are GB and me the only ones?
 
Well so far I'm with zero here. /me watches for others to start campainging.
 
VOTE for me

Hello everybody. Im running for the new moderator position.

First of all Im a theist who holds science in the highest regards. Now 5 reasons to vote for me.

1. Im not bias towards anyone. I treat everyone fairly.

2. I will not seek the banning of anyone unless they have done something very awful.

3. I will never delete an atheists post and I will never delete a theists post. I will only remove obscene material.

4. I will remove profanities. My goal is to keep sciforums clean.

5. Im not a crazed theist. Yes they exist, but I will not block them, they should be heard like everyone else. They can have very good points to. As can crazed atheists.

*EDIT* I have been a member since 10-05-01. Ive watched this place for a long time. So I think that I have the right kind of experience.

Thank you.

Counsler Coffee
 
Last edited:
"Tootin' My Horn" As Cris Requested

Personally, I think sciforums needs something of reform. A few people have told me they aren't going to delete a thread if they become mod. I'll be completely honest - I will.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13614
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13437
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12725
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12318

And other such threads would be done away with. My policy (and I assure you this is my policy right now, I'm willing to bet that discussion with other mods and a better understanding of how the job works would change the policy in some small ways) would be to close these threads and then after one or two days at the most, delete them. Anything generally deemed as excessive as far as swearing or name-calling goes will of course also be edited. I will not delete every swear word, but I will not let anything unnecessary stay.

And if it's not myself, please, can we get a long-standing member? I'm all for Xev, Cris or JamesR from the list you gave us Dave. If I had to pick one I'd say Xev, but it really just comes down to who's not going to deal with bullshit. I do not agree at all with the idea of a newbie getting the job. Frankly, I think this is a task best handled by someone who has watched the way sciforums functions for a long time.

Edit to Add
I would like to add that I do not believe whether myself or the other potentials are an atheist or theist is of any issue. The same as I would not base my vote for philosophy forum on what school of thought one follows, I see no reason to consider whether someone is a weak/strong atheist, agnostic or theist (or whatever else). In fact, I believe it shows to high a focus on the issue if you made a point to say that you are "an atheist who won't be prejudice" or "a theist who is open minded" (not singling anyone out here). Let's just deal with who's going to do a great job on keeping the forums clean and on topic.

Everything said here also stands if the Philosophy section wants a mod. And for the Philosophy mod if not myself, without a doubt it's Xev.
 
Last edited:
When I saw "Tootin' My Horn" I thought it was a bizarre euphemism for masturbation. Your links are buggered.
 
I promise to send dirty pictures to everyone who votes for me.

I'm an anarchist. I won't close threads unless I absolutely have to, and I am not easily offended.

However, I have little patience for stupidity. If someone like whatsupyall posts things with no redeeming value, I will warn him.

Sciforums risks turning into an idiot's sandbox. I will reverse this trend, but I will not in any way stifle speech, as freedom is one of the very few things I hold sacred.

If I have to close threads, I will. However, I promise to hold that as a last resort. And I'll be willing to listen to any and all complaints...even if they are about your ex-girlfriend stealing your favorite cds.

That said, I will enforce the rules with a lot of flexibility.

If not me, I would definitely support Tyler, Cris, and/or JamesR.
 
The religion forum needs very little moderation, despite what many might feel.

It does, however, need someone to be familiar with day-to-day activities and be aware of potential offensive or abusive behavior. And during my past 3 years posting in this forum I have seen very little such behavior.

Neither is a moderator needed to generate new ideas or promote discussions. The nature of the subject and the strong feelings involved guarantee there will always be strong content.

I would like to see a moderator who very definitely adopts a hands-off approach. Only in very clear cases of offensive or abusive behavior would intervention be required. Deletion of profanities is another area of direct action but then only where the offensive usage becomes unnecessarily frequent. Swearing is a normal part of life for most people; I see no reason to pretend that this forum is not real life as well.

The deletion of threads should be extremely rare and only in very clear cases. All posts here are to a large degree a matter of creativity, and while some might find some posts offensive or disruptive others might find them to be revelations and an opportunity to view and learn about extremes of human attitudes and behavior. Having that as a permanent research record has value.

On a more positive note a moderator should try to promote courteous behavior between members despite their strong opposing views. And try to discourage ad hominem attacks but instead encourage members to attack arguments and not people. The distinction can be subtle but is the best way to promote courteous debate with potentially extreme content.

The moderator when acting as a moderator as opposed to being a regular poster should maintain complete neutrality when it comes to religious beliefs. The objective of a moderator in this forum should be to take the minimum action necessary to ensure a high quality and courteous powerful debating environment.
 
Last edited:
My campaign speech

Hi everybody,

I do not claim to be an expert on religion. My particular area of expertise is physics, and I already moderate the Physics and Maths forum.

I do not believe it matters whether the moderator of this forum is religious or an atheist. Their ability to be a good moderator is not tied to that. If you're interested, I would put myself somewhere in the middle, with a leaning towards atheism on the grounds that atheistic arguments usually seem more logical to me than religious ones.

If you choose me as a moderator, I will take a fairly hands-off approach to moderation. There are three topics which are said to be most controversial in conversation: politics, sex and (you guessed it) religion. Therefore, it is not uncommon that discussions of religion can become quite heated at times. People on both sides tend to hold strong views which are difficult to sway. A wise man once said that you cannot hope to argue somebody out of something they have not been argued into in the first place, and I think that's particularly applicable in respect of religious convictions of every type.

I <b>will</b> take action in the following cases:

* Where a post or thread attacks a person rather than their position. (A certain amount of this is expected - I'm talking about nasty personal abuse here.)
* Where a post appears to be intended only to inflame members of a certain religious or social group.
* Where an excessive amount of swearing appears. I don't mind the odd swear word. Mostly I am concerned about swearing directed at people rather than their ideas.
* Where a poster posts many threads on essentially the same topic, or continually injects irrelevant arguments into unrelated threads.

I realise that moderating Religion is likely to be much more difficult than moderating Physics. I do not pretend to have all the answers from the start. If I need advice, I will certainly poll posters to the Religion forum for their views on the direction the forum should take.

I am unlikely to be very involved as a poster to the forum. Hopefully, this puts me in a good position to be fair and unbiased in moderating.
 
Well, I guess I better follow the trend and write a "speech"

Right, lets see.
- I respect peoples believes until they show an obvious disrespect to mine and say I'm "wrong".
- I am extremely hard to insult (moreso lately).
- I don't proclaim to know everything about everything
- I think anyones views are acceptable unless it is totally irrelevant to the thread/forum or is abusive or insulting to a person or group of people.
- Keep a close eye on any possible flame-wars (sometimes they produce something of value. Keyword, sometimes)
- Not fussed about "profanities" or "curse" words as long as it doesn't hinder the flow of the thread.
- I'd treat everyone equally; Friend or Foe, Old or New, Atheist or Theist
- I would be happy to co-moderate with anyone
- And I spend lots of time on Sciforums so problems would be dealt with ASAP

Well, thats my feeble attempt. I really didn't want to do that. I hope I didn't come off as sounding like a politician :(
 
Zero

My reflection, dirty mirror
There's no connection to myself
I'm your lover, I'm your Zero
I'm the face in your dreams of glass
So save your prayers
For when you're really gonna need 'em
Throw out your cares and fly
Wanna go for a ride?



however, as much as i like you...my vote goes to:
 
Who are these speeches supposed to win over. Porfiry or the members?

If this is a democracy, I vote James R, with Xev being my second choice, even though she's just as special as James.

If this is not a democracy, I'll just be happy pretending my two bits mattered :D.
 
Neb,

A bit of both I think, but I suspect the hope is that the voters choice will also match with Dave's requirements. If not then it will be interesting. But Dave is God here so who knows what might occur (religious innuendo in a religious forum intended).
 
I really, really don't want the members to vote. Not that it makes me look silly, I don't care about that. There are some members that will deliberatly vote for the stupid choice (which ironically would be me).

I think Dave should have chosen from the nominees
 
Ok, Counsler and I have just been discussing something and have concluded that there is a possibility that there could be some vote rigging.

There is a chance that people could create mulitple accounts and vote for themselves over and over again. Now, I know the nominees are smart guys and I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone. But if we can think of it, anyone can. And if it has happened, it would have been done on moderation.

I don't have any hard evidence to back this up. It is just an idea. But I have noticed that there has been a lot of new members today and a majority have not posted.

Again, not pointing any fingers and I'm not implying anyone has or even would do such a thing. I'm just saying it is a possibility.

Thank you for your time
 
That will not be too much of a concern, Thor. Should such happen it will be apparent. Thanx for bringing this to the forefront though.

The votes have not substantially changed since last night's totals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top