I have to agree about considering that FDR should be considered as a cult.
The problem is that Stefan claims philosophy and states that he is open for debate. The problem is that after some people started trying to complain personally to Stefan about what is going wrong on his forums, topics being locked before conclusion, people being banned without any reason) his tone has changed lately and now anyone criticising or trying to negotiate or at least, even merely asking what the hell is going on is merely considered a "hater". That is pretty bad.
To the point that any complaint to moderation is considered "leashing at the moderation emulating their childhood traumas". Unless those people are trained psychologists, that is a very bold (and incorrect) statement to make.
At least if you are banned and no reason is given. I know of cases of people who actually called the moderation because they were being harassed by some "philosopher king" for not being atheists (that you can buy, what takes a huge dump in the meaning it truly has in philosophy) that got banned for doing exacly that.
Then at their forums they try to squeeze money from people, I have even read "pay up or shut up being brought about". The problem however is moderation I so believe, at least at FDRF. I think the guy who goes by the name Michael is sitting and deciding too much based on his personal bias (theists are the usual victims of abuse at their forums, and yet, usually the ones kicked out, regardless if they are discussing anything related to that, but because they happen to be theists, so bite me and call me a dodo if the guy is not doing that because he is an atheist)
It really agravates me that Stefan is managing to get away with deFOOing, and Michael DeMarco is getting away with banning people for not being atheists while probably convincing Stefan that those people are just "haters" it is a disgrace for philosophy what is going on in there when I thought that finally philosophy would have a chance again. Just another cult.