|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Changes at EvC Forum | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
I agree, fully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
The point of having creationist moderators was to have them moderate the creationists. That's the only way to avoid the accusations of bias. But they were not doing a good job of that at all. If creationist admins are to be appointed that will have to change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I didn't say that they were ONLY to moderate creationists.
quote: No, Even if it did lead to genuine objectivity (unlikely) it would still lead to a perception of bias. Exactly like the accusations of bias made when evolutionist moderators take action against creationists.
quote: Given the fact that moderation involves taking actions against posters who are perceived as going against the rules naturally there will be a lesser perception of bias if the person handing out sanctions is seen to be on the "same" side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Both are important. However in terms of running the site a small bias that is not perceived will be less disruptive than a perception of bias - even if that perception is false. And since I do not believe that appointing creationist moderators will reduce actual bias (nor that there is a significant problem of bias that needs to be reduced) there is no need to appoint creationist moderators on that basis.
quote: PERCY owns this site and all the rest of us are just visitors. And I don't see why encouraging creationists to do their own policing implies that they have any lesser status here.
quote: How does having creationists moderate creationists imply that there is no bias in the evolutionist camp ? And why introduce the question of one side "dominating" the site ? It has no bearing on the question we are discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So the problem is a perception of bias.
quote: I am not suggesting that creationist moderators should be "tokens" in any way.
quote: Since I am not suggesting that creationist moderators should have any lower status than any other moderator (excepting Percy as site owner) this simply has no bearing on my point. The issue is the division of labour. I suggest that creationist moderators should take primary responsibility for moderating creationists. You think that they should largely ignore creationists in favour of taking action against evolutionists. Perhaps you should try discussing that rather than trying to misrepresent my point as reducing creationist moderators to "tokens" or having some sort of lesser status - neither of which I have suggested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I don't remember anyone else saying that "balancing out ideology" was a requirement.
quote: It's pretty easy to find cases where creationists were getting away with it, too. And you know that there were complaints about that happening. I've seen no evidence of any systematic imbalance favouring evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: In other word's it's just your opinion that you were appointed for "ideological balance".
quote: So having creationists handle their own moderation should tend to produce more lenient moderation towards creationists. Is that a problem ?
quote: I understand what you are saying. The question is where is the conflict ? Why is your idea of "ideological balance" at odds with the idea that creationists should moderate creationists ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: You (wrongly) interpreted my comment that they should be moderating creationists as meaning that they should only moderate creationists. Why is it wrong then to take your comment that they should moderate evolutionists as meaning that they should only moderate evolutionists ? The rest of your post simply does not connect to what I've been saying. Apparently you still think that I am suggesting that creationist moderators should be placed in an inferior role. I made no such suggestion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024