General discussion of moderation procedures

On the three points.

• This has been one matter on which there is near unanamity of the moderators, as far as I can tell. Repeated use of strong criticism against another person, even if valid, merely contributes to degrading of the forum. After a few cautions have been made, continued righteous indignation will not be looked upon kindly.
  ​
  The use of majority votes is not feasible. The reason for having several moderators is to divide the workload, not multiply it. Now in fact, it's fairly common to solicit opinion from other moderators; and that did occur in this instance. but it is not required. This may mean censure of posters is not 100% consistent, but "I don't see this as a significant problem because it is only a discussion board, it's not dealing with life and limb."
  ​
• There are various kinds of damaging behaviours, and there's no clear line making one kind always worse than another. With real determination, a suitably fixated poster may be able to make even a trivial matter into a major problem.
  ​
• If someone's passion becomes emotional in a manner that inflames the forum, they may be provided with advice on how to express passion more constructively.

These comments are not intended to be directed at anyone in particular, nor at any one issue. I've not been much involved in recent battle royals.Cheers -- Sylas

It seems we can describe the difference as follows. By supernatural, you mean totally unrelated to the natural, whereas I mean beyond the natural domain, but still possibly interacting with the natural world.My definition allows for a supernatural creator. Yours apparently does not. This simplifies matters. Whatever word you want to use, the science forums do (IMO) permit consideration of a divine creator to the universe, who (by definition) interacts with the natural world by creating it. You don't call this supernatural, as far as I can tell; which makes this simply a teminological issue.Creationists are not appealing to the supernatural by your use of the word, since they are in fact saying that the creator interacts with the natural world and that one can infer details of the creator and the creative process from examination of the natural world. I guess this makes the creator "natural", by your use of the term; but in any case it is certainly permitted in the science forums.Added in edit. What is required in the science forums... for everyone .. is not the particular viewpoint or conclusion: it is that they address the matter in the light of physical evidence. Those who find some other basis for discussion more fruitful have other forums available.Cheers -- AdminSylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 05-19-2005 09:33 PM