The New BAS Forum
Sarah Murphy is a most-gracious representative of the Bibical Archaeology Society. Sarah sends out the weekly BAR newsletter with all the updates and debates concerning biblical archaeology.
Recently, BAS opened a new internet forum for discussions in archaeology and the newsletter has encouraged newsletter members to register and post in discussions in archaeology.
Notice, that in paragraph one, I use the terminology “biblical archaeology” and in paragraph two, I simply use “archaeology.” The reason the change in terminology between paragraph one and two is because the forum is not about discussions on biblical archaeology.
I posted several postings on the new BAS forum, and I found that “anti-biblical” was the standard and “biblical” was set aside. After posting my dissatisfaction with the new “Biblical Archaeology” forum, I posted I was leaving because of the “anti-biblical” flavor of the forum.
The immediate response from a poster was that if the fundamentals left the forum, that the IQ of posters would go up 50 points. I reported that thread, and a week later, I sent Sarah Murphy a complaint with the new BAS forum. I cited that the moderation was poor. I have complained that if the forum was being supported by BAR, then why should there be postings on subjects that BAR would never consider publishing.
I was told by Ms. Murphy that the personal comments had been removed, and I was encouraged to continue posting. I posted several responses until I reached the point that I found the same thread and same comment that the forum IQ would go up 50 points if the fundamentals left. Again, I reported the thread.
The response from the moderator was that they didn’t see a problem. I was told that in reporting responses, the exact statement had to be quoted for them to be able to moderate the response. Now, the program format in the new BAS forum identified that to report an inappropriate response to click on the appropriate icon in individual responses.
That tells me several things.
1) Sarah Murphy is not in control of the forum.
2) The reporting format is ineffective in moderating the forum.
3) The moderator staff is unable to identify problems without someone taking them by the hand and leading them to the exact line and word that is in violation of rules posted on the forum.
4) The new BAS forum is supporting “anti-biblical” subjects and the moderation staff has no problem with that type of posting.
Do I recommend this forum to anyone studying or interested in biblical archaeology?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Unless, of course, you believe that Moses was actually Sargon, the Assyrian ruler, and that the Exodus did not occur. If you believe that—and you are willing to entertain poor moderation—then the new BAS forum is for you.
Been there, done that—twice.
And twice was enough for me, sufficiently so, that I feel that a warning should be made to others before posting.
~serapha~
Recently, BAS opened a new internet forum for discussions in archaeology and the newsletter has encouraged newsletter members to register and post in discussions in archaeology.
Notice, that in paragraph one, I use the terminology “biblical archaeology” and in paragraph two, I simply use “archaeology.” The reason the change in terminology between paragraph one and two is because the forum is not about discussions on biblical archaeology.
I posted several postings on the new BAS forum, and I found that “anti-biblical” was the standard and “biblical” was set aside. After posting my dissatisfaction with the new “Biblical Archaeology” forum, I posted I was leaving because of the “anti-biblical” flavor of the forum.
The immediate response from a poster was that if the fundamentals left the forum, that the IQ of posters would go up 50 points. I reported that thread, and a week later, I sent Sarah Murphy a complaint with the new BAS forum. I cited that the moderation was poor. I have complained that if the forum was being supported by BAR, then why should there be postings on subjects that BAR would never consider publishing.
I was told by Ms. Murphy that the personal comments had been removed, and I was encouraged to continue posting. I posted several responses until I reached the point that I found the same thread and same comment that the forum IQ would go up 50 points if the fundamentals left. Again, I reported the thread.
The response from the moderator was that they didn’t see a problem. I was told that in reporting responses, the exact statement had to be quoted for them to be able to moderate the response. Now, the program format in the new BAS forum identified that to report an inappropriate response to click on the appropriate icon in individual responses.
That tells me several things.
1) Sarah Murphy is not in control of the forum.
2) The reporting format is ineffective in moderating the forum.
3) The moderator staff is unable to identify problems without someone taking them by the hand and leading them to the exact line and word that is in violation of rules posted on the forum.
4) The new BAS forum is supporting “anti-biblical” subjects and the moderation staff has no problem with that type of posting.
Do I recommend this forum to anyone studying or interested in biblical archaeology?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Unless, of course, you believe that Moses was actually Sargon, the Assyrian ruler, and that the Exodus did not occur. If you believe that—and you are willing to entertain poor moderation—then the new BAS forum is for you.
Been there, done that—twice.
And twice was enough for me, sufficiently so, that I feel that a warning should be made to others before posting.
~serapha~
posted by ~serapha~ at 6:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home