I was speaking with someone recently, who wasn't aware of my "open challenge" -- so apparently I need to publicly announce it again! We can't have people forgetting this:

I have mentioned my open challenge many times over the years, usually after someone is banned.

My challenge is this:

You find me ONE FORUM, JUST ONE, that isn't new and/or permanently tiny*, where you can harshly insult the owner/moderator, be insubordinate towards the moderator(s) and rules, or try to turn the forum membership against the owner ("start an uprising"), and yet avoid being banned.

...and I will (shave my head, publicly apologize, insert degrading and/or disagreeable activity here).

For example, go on Fisheaters, sign up for an account, and take Tracy ("Vox") to task for adultery, supporting transsɛҳuąƖs, etc. and count how many seconds your account lasts. Or sign up on a Trad forum and loudly critique the owner and forum for their position on the Crisis, while directing readers to another forum! Don't limit yourself to one or two posts, either. Or sign up on Suscipe Domine and accuse the moderator/owner of being non-Catholic because he's not a dogmatic Sedevacantist. Or accuse him of being a Masonic infiltrator trying to destroy Tradition from within. Or find out where the forum owner attends Mass, and accuse that priest/bishop/organization of being evil, a destroyer of Tradition, etc. Use your imagination!

I know for a fact that I'm right. I have been on Trad Catholic fora since 2005, so I know what I'm talking about. When I exercise "moderator authority" or swing the ban hammer on occasion, I am par for the course at worst, and extremely patient, more tolerant than all my peers at best. I am certainly not particularly bad, a tyrant, etc. Those who recoil in horror at any exercise of forum authority have never run a forum in their lives. Meanwhile, those who have moderated a message board/mailing list/forum to any extent are completely sympathetic to me. Isn't it funny how that works!


*I put in the proviso "new and/or permanently tiny" because it's a fact of nature that brand-new fora, and "micro" fora which can't bust out of the tiny phase, are more desperate for members/traffic, so they will often deal with "crap" that real forums would never put up with. Also, micro fora are small enough (including traffic) so the owner might be a bit bored, so they don't mind the drama. "Any excitement/activity is good excitement/activity" for them. But even they have limits! They ban people all the time too.

I think you are right Matthew.  Having said that, you don't actively moderate or post official rules as other do either.  I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to that.

Maybe I'll get around to writing some up...we used to have some rules in a thread around here somewhere.
But whatever rules I post, there will always be a last rule to cover all exceptions, which justifies the ban of any malicious user trying to skirt or exploit the rules. 

Long story short, no list of rules and/or moderating bots can ever replace a human being with the faculty of reason.

Ask the Freemasons which form of government is the hardest to corrupt or infiltrate. You can tell what form they hate the most -- all the empires and monarchies disappeared after World War I (that is not a coincidence either -- WWI was arranged precisely for this purpose).

Matthew, I think you are fairly tolerant and I commend you for that, however I think you are way too lax when it comes to allowing profane language and subject matter.

 When John Lane’s Sede Forum was up and running, speaking as a former moderator, I think he was very tolerant of opposing views and personal attacks against him. So, as for your challenge, I think you would be fairly right today, but not in the past. The reason I use the qualifier “fairly” is because you banned me about a year ago without any warning, but to your credit you allowed me to return under a different name as you thought that the name, “recusant sede”, was too overtly sedevacantist.

Wait! You changed your opening post. Your challenge was to find a forum with over 250 members, I did. Why did you edit your post?

Edited:

You still allow feminine mentality to pervade throughout the forum. You keep feminine thinkers like Ladislaus, JezusDeKoning, poche, and fem trads like meg, Aleah, but you ban masculine thinkers like Mark79, Telesphorus, Croix de Fer, and you accept the departure of BTNYC.

Most of the aforementioned feminine thinkers have repeatedly rendered insults, too, but you don't ban them. If you ban the masculine, then you need to ban the feminine, too.

Telesphorus was un-banned years ago; he just never came back. Mark79 is on the way back. And what do you mean "accept the departure"? I can't force people to stay if they don't want to.

As for Croix de Fer, that is YOU, I don't regret banning him at all, the whole forum cheers me on to keep banning him, and I'm going to ban you here for the 1000th time.

I explained in my post above. Please read it.

Short version: I realize I can't just use a number. I was thinking about young "micro" fora when I pulled that 250 number out of thin air. But after further consideration, I realized that any forum, large or small, has the total membership number creep up over time, even if the number of regular members holds flat. You could have a micro forum last for 15 years, and the "total membership" would creep up to 400+ members, but the forum would never leave the status or traffic level of "micro forum" the whole time. Years in business HAS to be taken into account, if you're going to look at the "total membership" number of a forum. It's common sense!

I made it clear: CathInfo's "total membership" over 13 years is 6700+ members. John Lane's forum got 467 members. Not in the same league.

Ergo, even if you could show me evidence that I asked for (which you HAVEN'T), his forum would be disqualified because his was a tiny forum, desperate for action.

Not to mention his forum shut down. Maybe it's because he took too much abuse from members? We can't have CathInfo shut down likewise. Again it would prove my point. So the forum has to be currently open.

That’s fine, then you are right, it wouldn’t qualify under those perimeters. I concede.  That still doesn’t completely answer my previous post. You banned me without any warning whatsoever. From what I remember, I posted something that really made the R&R position look foolish. That post was deleted, so I can’t give you all the details.

Just the other day I was thinking that Matthew is unusually tolerant of criticism when I saw how he handled negative reactions to the ban of Mark. I would expect most people with a wide experience of forums to recognize this about him. 

Cathinfo has an interesting moderation style in that Matthew deliberately minimizes his involvement. For example, one of the functions of up/down voting is to create social pressure on posters to behave well, thereby avoiding intervention from a moderator. 

Practically any aspect of moderation involves trad-offs. For example, an explicit list of rules provides clear expectations but also has a down side.   When there are forum rules there tends to be forum "lawyers" who try to use those rules. Part of what makes being a moderator so difficult is that one constantly trying to find a middle ground between bad extremes. 

Since I have experience of bad moderation and no moderation, I have a great appreciation of the role of moderator. This is why I have a strong tendency to be grateful and supportive of moderators. 

Why does the sede position bother you so much, the same person I don’t consider is my pope is the same person you resist, I am a little puzzled