I started out with a good deal of sympathy for OLO but this dwindled over time as I came to realise that the editorial bar for publication was set much lower for religious apologists and AGW alarmists than for their opponents. If OLO is prepared to play fair and apply the same standards to all its articles -- which may mean increasing the size and diversity of its editorial board -- then I would be happy to see it go on; otherwise it seems to me it has outlived its usefulness.

GrahamY

I agree that the details of disagreements with the moderator should be kept off forum. However, simply banning or suspending someone who merely states they "disagree with the moderator" IS as much an infringement of free speech as that for which you are claiming victim status.

As I stated previously, I do not have any objection with the diversity of opinion of either articles or comments presented. I do take issue when comments are nothing more than hate filled rages - these comments are not always deleted when requested, and it takes courage for a complainant to discuss with the moderator why a comment should be deleted as they risk suspension or worse merely for disagreeing.

The premise of this forum is excellent.

And it in not possible to remove bias from any moderator.

However, said moderator has responsibilities and is obliged to treat all with respect and courtesy whether s/he agrees with the request for deletion or not.

The comments about minority groups such as gays have crossed the line from robust to abuse.

Time for some reflection by all.

PS

GrahamY

As an example of overreaction to opinion is your comment to Pynchme above. She was not abusive, merely presenting her view - the so called line you claim she crossed was a criticism of your moderating style, if you cannot tolerate any form of criticism, please consider handing the difficult responsibility of moderation to someone who is less personally sensitive.

I too would hate to see OLO fold it has been a terrific forum. OLO has degenerated over recent months.

im allways one needing to know why

and im not about to comment on moderating ..[but more about immoderation]...by others not officially ..supposed to be ..moderating

i noted user http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6699
[who has 5 posts]..thus who is i suspect a sock puppet..[but im only guessing]..and remember when we presume..we make an ass out of u and me..[ooops that was assume..i presumed wrong]

but such is the fruits of presumption
in lue of fact

anyhow

i was attracted to visit his/her.. post pages
because i read this ...rather obvious comment..[at this topic]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#197512

so i visited the link to the article
then visited the article

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11268&page=0

to make this comment there

[and also to read some of the comments
the user thought should have been censored]but may not have

[ps was he diss-cussing a moderating decision?

anyhow....as i dont know ..if ..that id complained..or wether another id complained..but its clear someone complained ..to ibm and anz

[it would be useless to speculate
if my having been attendant on the..[posted topic] ..could have chasnged the course of events....[going by the lost mail principle..]

;to explain

for want of a moderate poster ..bringing down the tone of the topic posted..[ie a nail..the horseshoe was lost..for want of a horseshoe the horse was lost...for want of a horse the gun-carrage never made it into battle..and the battle was lost..thus was the war lost..for want of a nail]

continues

we are each important
each but nails holding this opinion voicing-line together]

but there are those ...who feel their voices are more important
those ..who can make wars ..over nothing..who see everything as a must*win battle

some who pretend to be nails
or think they are horses..or even those fools[like me]...who think anything they say..could have changed things..[or else why bother posting]

while on my forced sabbaticle...because of annon complaint
wierd karmic events happend...

but im not happy that they did

its grayhams call
not those ..who think they know how to get the nails deleted

or take horse-shoes from horses..
or get horses canned

[if its a flight they be wanting..
its fight they shall beget]...

this isnt about bankers..[lest we forget]
its simply about paying the bills...and freespeach be allowed to be heard..[and corrected]..

let what happend on the field..
stay on the field..

[at the to-pick]..
but the topic ...is closed

darn...

This will be my last post to OLO. The reason is expressed pretty well by Jon J and J Parker above.

I've been a supporter of the site for some time, including making a substantial donation well before any of this current kerfuffle came up. I saw that donation as an investment in a worthy experiment that aims to provide am outlet for expression that is not readily available elsewhere. However, I have become increasingly concerned about the moderation, finding myself disagreeing with it more than I agree.

I'm not concerned that Graham has a bias. He makes no secret of his own religious affiliations or his political views, so it is not unexpected to see articles expresing views aligned with his own getting traction, if only because he knows more people who may be inclined one way than another. I am concerned, however, when exponents of one view are held to a higher standard than others expressing an opposing view, which I feel has become more prevalent of late.

I suspect Graham is finding it difficult to maintain his objectivity under the pressures, both financial and personal that he is facing at the moment. I can sympathise with that, but I can't condone it in the face of the ideals that OLO aspires to promote.

"Soft" power is not just the preserve of the pink lobby - religious groups are also astute in using it. The fact that Graham has little complaint about their exercise of such power does not change the reality of its existence.