For the most part (if my perception is accurate) I'm tolerated reasonably well over there for a person who holds an entire list of disagreements with the foundations of the whole enterprise. It might be said that I have little in common ideologically with most of the members unless we grant a common interest in getting closer to the truth through argumentation.
Some folks aren't much for hearing the other side, however. Here's how one fellow put it:
I (...) have had Bryan on ignore for a long time. I will take this opportunity to urge the administrator, et. al., to revoke Bryan’s privileges. His arguments are consistently disingenuous, and his presence detracts from this forum.If the gentle reader wonders how the author could judge that my arguments are "consistently disingenuous" while also having me on ignore for a long time, rest assured you're not alone. Indeed, the manner in which the message performs its own reductio ad absurdum makes it almost elegant in an ironic sort of way.
The moderators could certainly ban me at any time, and it's also true that moderators have warned me about the content of my posts (a tale for a later time, perhaps) albeit with a dubious basis for doing so. Thus, I'll be interested to see if political tensions of various origins do result in banning.
As usual, I'll try to stay so far inside the posted rules that the moderators will effectively have to come up with a new rule in order to ban me based on the rules.
The CFI Forum is open to everyone willing to abide by the Forum’s rules. We welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as this is done in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive as described below in the sections on problem threads, posts and members.Whoops! I'm on thin ice!
(read more rules)
The decision to allow any member to post is entirely at the discretion of Forum Moderators, in their capacity as responsible stewards of Forum functioning.The rule apparently renders nonsensical the statement that the CFI forum is open to everyone willing to abide by the rules, of course. I think they could dispense with that rule with a little rewrite of the former paragraph: The CFI Forum is not necessarily open to everyone willing to abide by the Forum's rules. We reserve the right to permit reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, at our own discretion.
Simple, and it builds no potentially false expectations of adherence to non-subjective principle. CFI has my permission to adopt the rewrite into an updated version of their rules without attribution.
More on CFI.