Faith now has her own forum (pertaining to evcforum.net topics)

I'd love to see Faith return. Although our relationship was, uh, rocky, I think we attained a bit of mutual respect and understanding.And any forum that can endure a Cold Foreign Object can handle Faith.No conditions are necessary, and never were: just treat her like any other member, suspensions and all. As a moderator, I also opposed the banning of Randman until it was clear that a consistent discipline of suspensions was not in the works, perhaps because frequent suspensions might have made him look like a creationist martyr.I say, suspend members for clear violations of forum rules, and if that means they surface once a month before again being sent beyond the pale, so be it--then at least the possibility of change is not extinguished.Bannings are like executions. I oppose those, too.Bannings result from weariness and loss of patience. Suspensions of steadily increasing lengths should prevent those from occurring.Who knows, maybe Iano of the Sepulchral Hands will hang out more, too. At least these folks could write a coherent sentence. I miss that.Yo, Faith! Behave! Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

So just reactivate her account.If she prefers to stand outside pissing in, she'll only erode the ground on which her own forum stands.If she comes in and pisses all round, suspend her and reestablish for the record that problematic behavior.Why let her jujitsu her banning to advantage?Many of our best members have been suspended; it only takes a moment to suspend anyone. She will either continually document the justice of her suspensions or remain silent here and continually undermine the justification for her own forum.I don't mean to campaign, really, or to suggest Percy did not have reasonable grounds to ban Faith. We differ on the philosophy of banning, but I recognize the reasonable consistency of his outlook.It just seems a simple matter, one simply readdressed, if necessary.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I understood that, Admin, which is why I addressed my thoughts to Phat.I do appreciate your position on the matter and mean no disrespect with my different view.Thank you for your attention to this matter.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Ah, but they're not boring.We are all divas during some portion of our fretful hour: shooting one of us in the act only encourages the others.Don't misunderstand me, Archer. I don't advocate reactivating Faith's account because she has opened her own forum. I opposed her banning and have steadily supported her return since. The context and content of my advocacy have merely changed with the times, the current instance prompted by this new thread.This is only--and somewhat trivially--an internet forum. The stakes here do not rise to the level of a permanent ban.Go, unrepentant woman, into exile! Sheesh...exile!? Hasn't diva misbehavior met with diva response?

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

AdminBuzsaw, you not only argued your personal position in moderator mode but also called Jar a liar.Do you expect to debate the issue in admin mode and not receive a response in-thread?Your inflammatory language--e.g., "Jar, that is a big fat meanspirited off topic lie."--was clearly in violation of forum guidelines and falls short of the demeanor expected from moderators.You set Jar up with one post, then knocked him down with another.Shame on you.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Reducing another human being to utter predictability is beyond even your considerable powers, Archer. Actually, most bans turn out not to be permanent, and suspensions take about 30 seconds of admin time--the effort and time involved do not seem to have made suspensions hard to come by.I oppose permanent bans on principle. Like spankings and beatings, they usually occur after a failure of measured, predictable discipline. The pattern is like that of parents who ignore childish misbehavior until it makes them angry enough to hit.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Well, there's your basic anarchist position minus the bombs. I suppose.Abe: Not that there's anything wrong with that...though you do seem to support permanent bans but oppose anyone having the authority to impose them.Edited by Omnivorous, : afterthought

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification, CK. I did misunderstand you. I see now that your outlook is more Old Testament than Anarchist. In that hypothetical context, I might agree with you about Faith remaining banned.The process you advocate is not the case, however, and since other, equally egregious offenders return after "permanent" bans, I still support Faith's reactivation as a matter of equal treatment.Let me also note that a ban imposed after one or more occasions of admin displeasure might see you--and me--banned long ago.In a system of haphazard disciplinary actions and customarily non-permanent permanent bans, so-called permanent bans are unequally and unpredictably applied and rescinded.Fundamentally, I agree with Jar: if we want to converse with creationists, the tolerance bar must be set quite high because their positions, by definition, already contradict both evidence and reason.Some creationists may see that outlook as an insulting falsehood (Hi, Buz!), but if it is true, they would, wouldn't they? If that outlook were false, would not a more authentic religious response be the compassionate forgiveness of error?Since evolutionists by definition generally view creationist positions as reason and evidence-free, it is difficult to see why the evolutionist expression of that view should be a suspendable act, or the creationist instance grounds for a ban.Are there creationists whose knowledge and evidentiary standards you find acceptable? If not, why wait until we have banned them all to have a purely evolutionist forum, when we could achieve that by fiat?OTOH, it's a trival matter, it's a beautiful day, and further on the matter I will deponeth not.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------