Changes at EvC Forum

My suggestion is quite simple but would greatly inflame, I suspect, many long-term evos here: namely let there be 2-3 moderators and one of them be as strongly opinionated on the creationist and ID side as percy and perhaps another admin are on the evo side(probably need at least 2 just for the time's sake).Regardless of how unfair the creationist moderator appears to evos here, let him or her decide as they genuinely see fit and be prepared that evos are going to think they are unfair.It's apparent that most evos think creationist's arguments are wrong and illogical and likewise, most IDers and creationists feel the same about evo arguments. The purpose of the site, or at least the stated purpose, is not to empower one side over the other. However, one side is likely to feel the other side's arguments are avoiding the topic, breaking the rules, biased, etc,.....That's reality.If you want to attract and maintain posters from the various sides of the debate, you cannot have one side dominating the moderation of the site, as has been the case. Opening up more equality with the moderation will create a backlash and anger, imo, from many evos, but at the same time, it will create a situation where people wanting civil debate will come here and debate the issues, and that's what it is all about, right?Keep in mind that the vast majority of non-evos have stated they don't think the moderation of non-evos is fair, and it's evident that if not the vast majority, a great many evos, think the opposite, that non-evos are getting a pass. These opinions are no more likely to change than democrats are gonna think Karl Rove is a good guy, or Republicans are going to agree with Hillary that the Clinton's problems are a vast right wing conspiracy or that James Carville speaks the objective truth.Might as well get used to it and put up with what will appear "unfair" moderation to many.....just give equal power or near equal power to both sides of the debate and let it roll.There are exceptions.......I think keeping it civil is one of them. There is perhaps the ability to agree on that point, but then again, there are those that think using a word like evolutionism is uncivil, but starting whole threads disparaging the motives of non-evos and IDers is fine. So even there, the 2 sides probably won't see eye to eye.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

thanks, GDREdited by randman, : No reason given.

"many evos" is not all evos, but you cannot deny whether it was me, buzz, Christianadmin (who reinstated me but was over-ruled in a matter of days) were frequently taken to task any time they dared cross evos here, the accusation being they were biased towards non-evos. Moreover, the sentiment has been loudly and frequently asserted, quite incorrectly imo, that non-evos were being given a pass and evos held to a greater standard. This, in fact, seemed to be a majority opinion among evos here whereas the non-evos held the exact opposite view of the matter, that evos were being given a pass for all sorts of rude behaviour, public insults of creationists, diverting topics, etc,....My point is not to rehash the matter. My opinion is very clear. The point is that the 2 camps (an overly broad generalization to be sure) don't see eye to eye on these things and probably never will. If we are to have equality in debate and moderation so that people from both camps are attracted (by both I mean Darwinists on the one side and creationists, IDers and saltionists on the other), then the forum is going to have put up with an equality or near equality of moderation that ticks the heck out of the other side because their ideas of what is fair are so divergent.In other words, the differences in opinion on the EvC debate are also reflected in differences in opinion on moderation. I think expecting equal reasoning on interpretation and enforcement of the rules among people that disagree on the debate has probably been unrealistic and that just as people disagree on logic, what constitutes science, evidence, reason, etc,.....they generally disagree on what is acceptable civil argument and what is not, usually with one side seeing the other's comments as outside of the bounds while giving a pass to their own.Obviously, I think one side so to speak is more fair, but then again, it's my side. Perhaps it's best just to accept that there will likely not be agreement on interpreting and enforcing the rules, make it equal, and let it roll. I do think at least some consensus is possible, but if it's weighted towards evos, you will continually find non-evo posters and moderators less likely to engage in debate, and moreover, you will find the ones most likely to stick around to be generally the more combative ones when I would think one goal would be to attract posters and scientists that are not so combative.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

One note: I have not regained some posting privileges to my knowledge. There are very few forums I can comment on. I lost my password for awhile and the site wouldn't allow me to request it, apparently based on some glitch, but it's not like I've been "reinstated."Of course, I would welcome reinstatement and have some ideas stewing for awhile that I'd like to bring up......maybe I can still post in Showcase or something, but I think I am pretty much restricted from debating evolution topics here. I just saw this stuff and thought I'd comment. Hopefully, it's helpful.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Hear, hear..and thank you for those comments......but just keep in mind, I am not back yet, nor free to debate the topics (at least that's my understanding). This just happens to be one of the few areas I can post and so I threw in my 2 cents.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I was banned and then allowed to post on Showcase. I think that allowed me to post on suggestions or something like that, but don't recall.Not too many wanted to debate on Showcase, however, and now I can't start threads on Showcase (maybe I can via proposed topics?) and like I said, I lost my password and couldn't obtain it for awhile.I am not really sure why I can post on this thread, nor where else I can post, but yesterday tested and saw I couldn't post on regular threads and public announcement thread says I am pretty much limited.

well, that explains that......btw, no need to make this thread about me. I appreciate the kind comments however. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.If you are going to have a partisan evo, or however you want to say it, moderating, and we will because percy owns the site and argues for the evo side (not denigrating percy or anyone in case it comes off that way), the best way to attract people for evos to debate with, imo, is to have someone equally as partisan or opinionated or whatever that is a creationist or IDer moderating the site. That doesn't mean their moderation will necessarily be biased, at least in their minds. My point is that both sides will see the other side as biased at times, even as moderators, but at least there will be a sense EvC welcomes all to debate and all be treated equally and so forth.I know there are many non-evos that don't post or quit posting because they don't see this place as evenhanded, and whether people here agree with that assessment, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that the kind of non-evos EvC wants to attract feel that way. Some of these posters, some of whom I have exhanged emails with, are the kind of less combative, highly educated scientific types that can add a lot to the debate and the site, imo.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

So they weren't suppossed to moderate evos, just creationists?Do you see any problems with this line of thinking?Wouldn't a fairer, objective view be that we need creationist moderators to step in to moderate evos so that there is genuine objectivity in moderation? That non-evos see that they won't be subjected to just people arguing against their view interpreting their actions within an evo bias?If it's just all about creating an appearance of objectivity and not the real thing, your comment makes sense. You want someone that's not an evo to do your dirty work essentially, at least that's how it comes off to non-evos.Not trying to be offensive, but your comment is astounding to me in it's lack of awareness of what genuine evenhanded moderation and appearances would look like.

So is the goal here to try for genuine objectivity in moderation or just to create a mere appearance of objectivity? Your comments come off as saying, hey, the whole point was just to try to discourage the appearance of bias, not actually make the site less biased.Can you see that? Maybe so, but at the same time, having more and overwhelmingly more evos moderating also creates a perception of bias if not bias in reality as well. Moreover, when the purpose of having creationist moderators is seen as just to keep creationists in line and so forth, it really comes off as if the view that this site is our site, meaning for evos, instead of a sense that the site is for both sides equally to make their arguments. The whole tone of your comments suggests that. Creationists are the visitors and we own this place, eh?It also seems patronizing to say the whole point of creationist moderators is to moderate creationists, as if no bias exists within the evo camp. Isn't it at least possible if not likely, in your assessment of human experience, that a site dominated by moderators from one side will moderate in a biased fashion even if unconsciously?Do you think, for example, if we had debates between Democrats and Republicans totally controlled by Republicans, that no bias would come in, or vice versa?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You may believe that, but non-evos believe the opposite. Assuming your concern for an appearance of non-bias is to attract non-evos to post here (?), the question is how do you do that, and you are not going to do that having a token creationist moderator that is there "to moderate creationists" as you suggest. Unless there is genuinely equal weight given to creationist/IDer/saltationist's perception and opinion on moderation, you cannot create an appearance of a lack of bias because, frankly, there probably is bias.In fact, just dismissing their (our) views of the matter is in itself a bias against one side and claiming that side's perception of fairness and so forth is wrong. It's patronizing. Moreover, even if that is one's opinion or even if correct, if you are going to have an evenhanded debate free of the appearance of bias, you are going to have give equal weight to the perception of reality from the other side, and you cannot do that having one side passionately debating the other and also in charge of interpreting when an argument is reasonable, factual, civil, etc,....A good example of what I am talking is to consider the many thread titles with stuff like the Christian Cult of Ignorance or about the lunacy of IDers and creationists which is allowed with nary a thought it is offensive or wrong. Now, compare those to thread titles with the same things stated about evos?You won't find the same things allowed for evos because it's considered against the rules to suggest the motive or thought processes of evos are corrupted. Let's imagine what would happen if someone states similar things such as, say, evos cannot think objectively and critically about their beliefs because they have been brainwashed by ideology, the way they were taught or that they aren't being honest, that they are faith-based just not based in traditional faith, or any number of things that are entirely permissible and seem reasonable for evos to say about creationists, but if creationists or IDers think the same things towards evos, and sincerely believe them, those beliefs will still be considered rules-breaking.So what you have is the perception of how the rules apply is weighted by the views held by one side. If one side dominates the moderation, it is unlikely and probably unreasonable to think the site isn't biased. People aren't as stupid as we all seem. Having a token or 2 creationist moderators, kept on a leash, isn't going to erase the perception of bias because the bias is probably real.Make the site evenly moderated between the 2 sides and then you create an impartially moderated site, as much as possible at least.Edit to add: let me put it this way? What are you afraid of? Why not make the site completely evenly moderated between non-evos and evos?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : earlier edits to correct typos and adding one more comment for this edit

Never said, nor implied that. You are the one that stated creationist moderators were there to moderate creationists to avoid an appearance of bias.My points should be clear but apparently are not. I will try to make them clearer.1. What is the goal here? It's to attract and keep posters of different persuasions discussing the topic, right?2. What is a major problem? Creationists and IDers leave. Their number one reason for doing so is either they are banned or they say the moderation is uneven and so the site doesn't live up to it's billing.3. I, of course, and as everyone here knows, believe that the site is tilted badly in moderation towards evos. However, let's assume your perception is correct for sake of argument and having a site dominated by evo moderators has not led to bias in moderation. Either way, the point remains the same. Whether it's the perception of bias or it's real bias, the bottom line is you guys are losing the sorts of people you want to attract on the non-evo side and will continue to do so.4. My suggestion is to genuinely share power so to speak and appoint as many creationists and IDers as you do evos, and to give them wide latitude. In other words, when they moderate in a manner you disagree with, which is going to happen at times, their rule stands equally.5. I also pointed out that there is a serious problem of perception of what is rules-breaking or not. For example, there is disagreement over what is civil. It's considered civil debate to suggest creationists are stupid, ignorant, illogical, refusing to look at the facts, etc, etc,....Evos think they are not breaking any rules but just presenting what they think are facts.However, a creationist that suggests evos are brainwashed, ignoring the facts, ignorant, illogical or any of the exact same accusations the evos level, the creationist or IDer is somehow breaking the rules.So what you will do if you allow equal wieght to non-evo's perception of the rules and behaviour is that you would indeed make the site less biased and appear less biased, and there would be more creationists and IDers posting here, and isn't that the goal here? Of course, it will come with a price because many times evos are going to be ticked off and think the actions of the creationist or IDer mod are unreasonable. They are going to genuinely think that for the reasons stated above; my example being a good one.But why not give equal weight to both sides' perception of things here? Is it that important to protect the evo perception of what is fair to the exclusion of the other sides of the debate you want to attract?Edit to add: looks percy has made up his mind anyway on these things so that's that.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

thanks razd....Would love to talk about whale fossils again sometime, though maybe it's been a little over-done. There are still issues that have not been resolved though.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Wow.....thank you percy.My wife may not feel the same way as posting on this forum can definitely take a lot of time away from work...

I share the same concerns over Ned to be frank, but then again, I haven't been back very long so maybe shouldn't comment.

We could just ban all the creationists and IDers or maybe except a handful? Is that better?