I agree.

We need someone who can make objective neutral judgements. I am not much in those political threads, so I can't make a vote. But I know the people due to their views on certain topics who shouldn't be a mod.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/23/asia/afghanistan-explosion/index.html

it used to be a monthly basis, then bi-weekly, weekly, now it's a daily basis.

Oh, I wasn't refering to what you posted in the other thread, but rather the post I was replying to:

Why did you dismiss the pattern again? It is confirmed that the motivation wasn't religion. How was I off the bat entirely?

If you want to show the post you are replying to, then provide at its entirety, namely "There's no one criteria for what constitutes or does not constitute an Islamic attack."

My interpretation of your argument in the other thread was that you were saying there has to be a specific pattern for an attack to be an Islamic attack. My argument is that there's no one criteria for what makes an Islamic attack and that the more important aspect is the motivation. How an attacker goes about his killing spree does not change what his motivation was. This is why you were off because you were focusing on the wrong aspect. When more information came out, the killer had a history of being bullied and not feeling German enough.

The reason why I didn't claim anything either way prior to that was because there were reports of him saying "I'm German" while there was an eyewitness testimony from a Muslim woman that he shouted "Allahu Akbar". And this is actually another counterargument to your pattern argument because based on the then limited information, the motivation could've been Islam, but there was a good possibility that it was not based on the "I'm German" statement. The pattern doesn't provide an adequate enough picture and therefore, the root cause or the motivation is the far more important aspect.

In all honesty, I'd love to help out in the political threads but the troll threads I made guarantee that I probably will never be a mod.

I don't think it's necessarily the viewpoints, rather how they express them.

For example, if I don't like abortions, that's perfectly fine. It's just how you say it:

"Abortions are evil, and anyone who practices it are disgusting" VS "Abortions aren't good in my eyes, but everyone has their own viewpoints"

Ban-worthy statement vs an opinion that people may disagree with, but still respectable.

For example I made a thread about the FBI's decision on Hillary Clinton. I didn't go and say that anyone who agrees with the FBI is a moronic hillary clinton suckup. I let others say their opinions, admit I was wrong on certain parts, and moved on.

A moderator who  focuses on political threads needs to be able to understand how to say things in the best manner and to know how to admit they're wrong.

In all honesty, I'd love to help out in the political threads but the troll threads I made guarantee that I probably will never be a mod.

I don't think it's necessarily the viewpoints, rather how they express them.

For example, if I don't like abortions, that's perfectly fine. It's just how you say it:

"Abortions are evil, and anyone who practices it are disgusting" VS "Abortions aren't good in my eyes, but everyone has their own viewpoints"

Ban-worthy statement vs an opinion that people may disagree with, but still respectable.

For example I made a thread about the FBI's decision on Hillary Clinton. I didn't go and say that anyone who agrees with the FBI is a moronic hillary clinton suckup. I let others say their opinions, admit I was wrong on certain parts, and moved on.

A moderator who  focuses on political threads needs to be able to understand how to say things in the best manner and to know how to admit they're wrong.

Your argument was bad. Or have you ever heard of an islamic attack where the killer fled the scene only to shoot himself right afterwards? That's why I said that it's probable that the killing spree wasn't an islamic attack, but rather is an amok run because the pattern fits such a crime.

How an attacker goes about his killing spree determines what his motivation can be. Crimes cannot only be analyzed from start to finish, but they can also be tracked back from the end to the start. Just because you don't grasp my thought process doesn't mean that it was illogical.

In my response to you in the other thread I said that one piece of the limited information is that there have been a lot of conflicting eye witness reports. Based on the information that the ninth dead person is probably a killer, I had no reason to believe that Muslim woman for one second. Likewise, the likelyhood that there was more than one shooter was also slim based on the presumable suicide, so I didn't put much stock into the eye witness reports that suggested three killers were at work and instead was leaning towards a single person being the culprit.

Your argument was bad. Or have you ever heard of an islamic attack where the killer fled the scene only to shoot himself right afterwards? That's why I said that it's probable that the killing spree wasn't an islamic attack, but rather is an amok run because the pattern fits such a crime.

How an attacker goes about his killing spree determines what his motivation can be. Crimes cannot only be analyzed from start to finish, but they can also be tracked back from the end to the start. Just because you don't grasp my thought process doesn't mean that it was illogical.

In my response to you in the other thread I said that one piece of the limited information is that there have been a lot of conflicting eye witness reports. Based on the information that the ninth dead person is probably a killer, I had no reason to believe that Muslim woman for one second. Likewise, the likelyhood that there was more than one shooter was also slim based on the presumable suicide, so I didn't put much stock into the eye witness reports that suggested three killers were at work and instead was leaning towards a single person being the culprit.