Seventh Round: Matt's Response
I stopped answering Chad because the debate was covering old ground and stopped progressing.
Collection of following posts arranged here in order.
Deepinme: "Will this be saved somewhere?"
MattSlick: "Maybe. But, I haven't even looked at Chad's last response. nt"
Diane S: "Well I looked :-) and answered the four false accusations . . . " he made concerning moderators and the administration . . .
Chad wrote.."In your October newsletter you discuss the recent conflict with CARM’s atheists and say, “We found out that a couple of moderators who disagreed with me actually started feeding the atheists information from private conversations that only the moderators and I have access to.”
Considering that only two moderators are known to have disagreed with you and those two have lost their moderator status, I hope you will not accuse me of mind-reading if I say that it’s clear which people you’re talking about. Now, of course I can’t know all the evidence that you have to hand, but I do know the following things:
chad"1. Neither moderator was my source for the EVAN post that I cited."
. . . no one said they were. Why is this an issue in the debate? Chad is the person stating it was Evangelicals sending out post from EVAN. We were told there were atheists and Evans sending the post. No one ever stated it was moderators leaking information from EVAN.
chad"2. Neither moderator admitted to sharing any such information. You demanded of them (and all the mods) an oath that they had not shared any information with the atheists. One refused your demand that he take an oath regarding his personal communications, saying it was inappropriate for you to go fishing any time you thought there might be a leak, and the other took the oath even though he resigned as a mod."
. . . This is again false. First they did admit to sharing information. Second, they DID all take an oath not to share private conversations or disagreements with another moderator when signing on as moderators. They agreed in signing to keep disagreements private, to go to the moderator or admin in private--as Scripture tells them to do if they have a problem with another moderator and not to write or complain to unbelievers. Do you really think we have a private admin board so that our moderators may share the information? What on earth would be the point to making it private? As for resigning as moderator, they were removed with or without resignation for refusing to follow moderator guidelines and rules they had agreed to when signing on as moderators . . .
chad3. Neither moderator has been presented with any evidence against him.
. . . Another false accusation. Both were given the reason for their removal. They weren't presented with evidence concerning the EVAN board because we never said THAT is what was shared and was not the reason for their dismissal.
chad4. When Diane was challenged on the assertion that former mods were sharing information in a thread on ATH, she cited as evidence the statement by the mod that he would not take the oath and considered it inappropriate. She posted (under the subject “Oh really!”):
. . . Yes, because the mod HAD agreed to keep disagreements private and to keep admin and moderator business private and then refused.
"I will not make such an oath. Any conversations that I have
privately, CARM-related or not, are, frankly, none of the business
of CARM administration. "
. . . He did make the oath in August, 2004, when signing on as moderator and betrayed that trust, changing his mind but NOT informing us and instead informing the atheists or writing essays.
chadIf the best “evidence” CARM has to offer is a refusal by one mod to take an oath, it suggests there is no credible evidence whatsoever.
. . . No one ever suggested that we posted evidence on the boards. Why should we. It is private. It was the atheists and former volunteer bringing up the moderator situations on the boards, certainly not the administration.
chad5. Having spoken with many atheists, I can find none who back up your accusation – i.e. not one cites the two mods as a source of any private information."
. . . I already gave you the email. Obviously Chad is wrong, again. He spoke with many but not all of them since atheist DID accuse moderators of discussing private CARM business . . . where a moderator informed the atheist of a private meeting ONLY announced to volunteers or moderators . . . a moderator approving an essay used by Chad in his debate when the moderator had AGREED to go to Matt or me first with concerns, he did not. A moderator shared information from the banning board concerning disagreement with a rule violation. The atheist accused the moderators of sharing our private workings of CARM, so this is another false accusation from Chad that there were no atheists suggesting a moderator spoke to them giving them private information. Of course they did. They violated our moderator rules and that is why they were removed.
"What is self destructiong is CARM itsself, from the inside out. I've had 4 mods just e-mail me with their opinion of matt's recent erratic behavior. I don't know what will arise from your meeting tonight, but CARM shall cease to exist as you know it now.
Man, I've learned more about the inner workings of carm in the last 3 days than I have in the last 3 years. "
. . . The atheist states, mods are emailing, the atheist knowing of our 'private meeting' obviously shared by a moderator, AND the 'inner workings of CARM' came from a moderator as only a moderator knows the 'inner workings,' a moderator sharing CARM admin business that he had agreed NOT to share when signing on as moderator. Chad was wrong again. The mods were removed as they violated rules for moderators. It had nothing to do with EVAN boards.
ChadeE: ""Is this Diane's commentary or Matt's answer? I need to know if I should respond or not."
Diane S: "Matt did not respond . . . nt"
ChadeE: " . . . Matt stated that only he and I were to post to this thread. At least one other who tried had his post deleted. So I wasn't sure if this was just you chiming in with your spin on things, or if you were replying on Matt's behalf. Since it's the former, I see no need to comment here.
I can only assume that if Matt decides to archive this debate, he will leave it to our posts.