Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 424 (566976)
06-28-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


Are you joking still?
Every few weeks I might browse through this site and see if anything has changed at all in the way the discussions are proceeding and the way they are moderated.
I just about choked with laughter and incredulity when I read you wrote that it is against the forum rules to be insulting or disrespectful to other posters-as if this is a concept that is applied evenly and fairly to all members. If you believe this, then crashfrog is certainly correct-you must be under some sort of psychological mind trick akin to the Stanford prison experiments.
There is no way under any God's green earth that you can say that people who do not share Percy's (or your) ideas about science or philosophy get equal treatment to those that do. Absolutely no way. Do I need to post 400 examples of insults and disrespect to creationists or anyone who doesn't toe the Pro-Darwinian evolution line (without moderator objections) to prove this point or can we not just agree that this point is so clearly, obviously transparently true to anyone with even a shred of objective observation-that no further proof of this is necessary.
As just a small observation on the clear partiality of this site, and the clearly uneven treatment given to posters here by Percy and others, why is there not one single person who doesn't believe in Darwinism who is assigned to be a moderator? I thought this was a debate site-not a Darwinism group mouthpiece ( Ok, actually I didn't really think that it wasn't, but the site does claim that it is not in).
After using this site for just a few short days I saw how ridiculously biased and untruthfully this place was moderated and I was appalled frankly. I don't know about the specific cases you guys are talking about-but I know exactly the basic concepts of unfairness that crashfrog is talking about. People who are pro-Darwinists are allowed to regularly insult (think Dr. A, Cavediver, etc), make scientific claims without proof, make assertions without evidence, change the direction of discussions, and assert their self proclaimed superiority of knowledge at will, while behavior from anyone who is not pro-Darwinian is attacked regularly for anything even resembling a hint of disrespect or for even simply retaliating to a barrage of insults-many of them at the hands of the moderators themselves, with Percy being one of the worst culprits.
How many frank scientific discussions are on the front page of the all topics list now? Any? And of the very few that even resemble a scientific discussion (strewn in amongst the plethora of discussions from atheists questioning why the bible says this and God does that, as if they can know) how many are participated in by non-Darwinians? Do you think it is just a coincidence that they all have abandoned this site?
Percy wants an echo chamber, and so that's what he gets, and I find it disgusting that he makes claims of it being one of the best moderated sites on the internet. As to how I have seen you personally be involved in discussion and moderations, I don't have a big problem with it, but at the same time you do begin virtually all conversations with an aire of "Well, let me do you a favor of explaining the truth to you..." and then it becomes a prolonged battle on the part of the responders to unravel the reasons why something isn't necessarily the truth, while at the same time being hurled at mercilessly with tomatoes by 10 of your philosophical cohorts, and then Percy.
Not a very rewarding experience for most people obviously-and I have about as thick of skin as anyone who would ever post here, I can promise you that. I frankly consider my unjust and petty suspensions I have received here as a Badge of Honor I am proud to receive (although admittedly not very difficult to be rewarded with if one is a non-Darwinian -as the stats clearly show) for sticking around just long enough to give Percy back a piece of my own mind before he covers his ears once again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 1:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 5:41 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 06-29-2010 6:58 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 10:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 137 of 424 (567180)
06-29-2010 11:38 PM


Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
Quite humorous to have a discussion about the effective application of the moderation on this site, with modulous claiming that it is one thing to have a vague discussion about homosexuality being morally equivalent to bestiality (or as wholesome or as thoroughly enjoyable or as likely to being happening simultaneously or who knows what they are saying) but it is another to DIRECTLY reference the stunted monkey like inability of a PARTICULAR individual to dissect a phallic-like fruit.
I think the offense taken is somewhat understandable.
And yet the hypocrisy abounds:
AzPaul3 writes:
Your view of this whole thing is bogus. I guess it isn't easy being green.
Why are you here, Frog?
Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from Crash Frog to Troll Frog or maybe Trash Frog? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.
You see members, let it be known, personal insults simply will not be tolerated.
So just suck it up, grow a pair, and take your bullshit elsewhere you overly sensitive, adolescent, screwed up psyche sensitives trolls! Take you sand bucket and play elsewhere if you can't take us not allowing insults, you shit throwing little kids!!!!~!

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 11:44 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 1:05 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 140 of 424 (567185)
06-29-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 11:44 PM


Re: Is a discussion about the inconsistency of moderation off topic?
I am quite sure I will be the one accused of subverting the rules.
"You see Bolder-dash, AZPaul3 was just making a social commentary about frogs shitting in sandboxes, but when you uttered the word fruit, that was off topic. I am suspending you for 24 hours. See you tomorrow. Percy"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 11:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 154 of 424 (567215)
06-30-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by ICANT
06-30-2010 3:09 AM


Re: Moderation
Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I believe Percy is actually running a business here, and as such I think he would do best to not take your advice to adopt the "its my way or the highway" approach to always running things if he expects to ever make money off this site (perhaps he doesn't expect that, but I am speculating).
Sure any company owner can say if you don't like it leave, and many have said this. And guess what happens? People leave. Not the best of strategies unless you are independently wealthy or stupid.
There are other sites around that people can utilize if having people participate wasn't very important to Percy.
I give Percy a little more credit for being smart enough to not completely disregard people's opinions. That doesn't mean he needs to capitulate to every posters wishes, but it also means you don't tell people regularly to piss off. Or you do, if you like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2010 3:09 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 5:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 156 by cavediver, posted 06-30-2010 6:08 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 157 by Admin, posted 06-30-2010 6:33 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 330 of 424 (568027)
07-04-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Buzsaw
07-04-2010 12:09 AM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
Ok, I am wiling to test that theory. I shall start a new thread and see if it is as evenly handed as you suggest.
That was certainly not the case in the past, and for modulous and others who want to make the fairly outlandish claim that creationists and others who held opposing viewpoint to the norm on this forum got the greater benefit of the doubt from moderators, I challenge them to back that up with facts. Such as showing the number of people who were suspended or banned the last two years who were pro-evolution and those who weren't, and their respective duration of bannings. I think you can take it as a total number, or as a percentage of users who fall in either category and you will clearly see that creationists and the like get banned at a much higher frequency on this site, than do the evolutionists.
(I hope I don't get banned for being off topic while others are talking about incest.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2010 12:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Huntard, posted 07-04-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 337 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2010 8:27 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 332 of 424 (568040)
07-04-2010 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Huntard
07-04-2010 3:48 AM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
Thank you for giving me your version of why you feel more creationists have been banned than evolutionists. I will take your opinion of that fact for what it is worth.
Still, I hardly feel reassured by your claims that the fact that there are a FEW non-darwinian evolutionists that are still able to post on this site as evidence of fair moderation. If that is the scientific reasoning you use for all of your analysis, I think it does not show much depth of critical review. For instance, what is the percentage of non-evolutionists that post on this forum? What are the percentages that have come here and been suspended? How many of those few non-evolutionists who post here do so with an equal amount of aggressive behavior towards their counterparts as the evolutionists do and are permitted to stay?
Simply saying that they didn't follow the rules and everyone else did is not a very useful statement. Of course if someone is going to be banned, the reason given is going to be because they didn't follow the rules. That proves that the moderation has been fair-because if someone is banned the reason given was they didn't follow the rules?
If 90% of the people in a population who was arrested and put in jail for jaywalking were black, and the police said- We didn't arrest them because they were black, we arrested them because they broke the rules, does that mean the policing was done fairly? What if the blacks only made up 10% of the population to begin with, and still were virtually always the ones arrested for jaywalking?
And what if the police said, well, there are some black people we didn't arrest, so see, that proves it, we don't want to arrest only blacks. Of course, its easy for the police to simply say, well the whites folks just don't jaywalk. But anyone with a mind knows that's bullshit-including the police, who don't care if you know its bullshit, because they make the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Huntard, posted 07-04-2010 3:48 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Larni, posted 07-04-2010 5:38 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 339 of 424 (568073)
07-04-2010 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Larni
07-04-2010 5:38 AM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?t
It was both modulous and at least one other poster that made the claim that creos are given more latitude to speak their minds then evolutionists, because Percy wanted to encourage MORE vigorous debate on his website from opposing views. So shouldn't it be up to them to prove this claim with scientific evidence first?
However, if you don't feel that they have any obligation to back up their claims with scientific evidence, I guess I have already won the argument, because that proves that a double standard DOES exist (scientifically proven) and thus I am correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Larni, posted 07-04-2010 5:38 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Larni, posted 07-04-2010 9:25 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 342 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 9:38 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 344 of 424 (568093)
07-04-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Buzsaw
07-04-2010 8:27 AM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?
Well, in America belief in something other than strict Darwinian evolution is not the minority view, but you wouldn't know it by the way the media portrays this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2010 8:27 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 345 of 424 (568094)
07-04-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Modulous
07-04-2010 9:38 AM


Re: Without precedent - or well documented history of capriciousness?t
Yes, I read that faith was suspended indefinitely until she could find someone who shares her views. I actually had not been aware that having someone share your same views was also a requirement of this forum. I may be in trouble in that case.
I also would like to know how often Dr. A, or AzPaul3 or any number of other antagonistic repliers have been given second chances...and 3rd, and 4th....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 9:38 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2010 10:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 349 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2010 11:07 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 357 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2010 1:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 376 of 424 (568306)
07-05-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Theodoric
07-04-2010 10:32 PM


Re: Deliberation
Well, maybe it is ancient history and maybe it isn't. perhaps there still are some major issues with the moderation here.
For instance, I have proposed a thread entitled The merits and shortcomings of Neo-Darwinian Evolution. One would think that is a pretty good thread for a site dedicated to the debate of Evolution vs. Creationism.
And yet, so far the only answer i have been given to this request is that the subject matter is too broad, and that if I want to discuss this, I must first give my own personal opinion of its merits and shortcomings.
Well, first off, it is a bit silly for me to have to write a lengthy diatribe about my own opinions in the very opening post, without allowing people to become involved first-and secondly, why do my own opinions matter intially? I would like to hear some others.
If I were of a suspicious mind towards the moderators of this site-which is what Crashfrog is suggesting by the previous actions of moderators, I might think that they simply want to stifle this kind of discussion because they really don't like much criticism of evolution, and by forcing the topic to be so singularized, they can easily stop any organized attacks on the whole theory, by saying that anything outside of a narrow scope of inquisition is off topic-a tactic i believe I am familiar with.
Is a broad discussion of the merits of evolution really so damaging to the site as to not be allowed? I even offered to put it into the coffee house if that made it easier to have a free for all discussion, but so far that has also been disallowed without an explanation.
So, is there reason for me to be suspicious, even despite the fact that so many evolutionists here have claimed that opposing viewpoints are given more latitude for discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Theodoric, posted 07-04-2010 10:32 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 8:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2010 9:10 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 379 of 424 (568316)
07-05-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Huntard
07-05-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Deliberation
the is another thread that lists the questions people have about evolution. I don't think this is much different.
if people want to list things like point mutations, and speciation, and adaptation, and let readers decide if each of these issues bolsters the claims, or weaken them-then I think that's great. Who is harmed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 8:35 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 382 of 424 (568328)
07-05-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Theodoric
07-05-2010 9:10 AM


Re: Deliberation
Or, or..you could let people propose their own topics, instead of telling them what topic you think they should discuss.
By the way, were you also philosophically opposed to the thread-problems with Evolution-Submit you Questions?
Because I don't remember your objection to that at the time-I guessed I missed that-because of my persecution complex perhaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2010 9:10 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 9:26 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 386 by Theodoric, posted 07-05-2010 9:26 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 390 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 3:15 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 387 of 424 (568339)
07-05-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Huntard
07-05-2010 9:26 AM


Re: Deliberation
Let me point out to you that I am discussing whether or not the moderators have caused damage or the collapse of evcforum-by way of more examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Huntard, posted 07-05-2010 9:26 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 394 of 424 (568414)
07-05-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Asgara
07-05-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Deliberation
The topic you are referring to, Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. was moved, I believe in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, to the "Free for All" forum.
I was willing to put my topic in any folder Percy wanted-including Free for all. And yet he STILL refused to promote a very relevant topic-and also refused to asnwer why he refused mine and accepted this one.
Can there be any more clear evidence than this, that in fact Percy clearly does try to suppress discussion on this website when it doesn't agree with his own worldview?
I would be happy to challenge Percy to debate his stance on another forum, which doesn't try to suppress academic discussions, but of course he won't because he prefers to hide behind this website where he is free to control all the rules and suppress things he doesn't want allowed to be talked about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 3:15 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 8:40 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 400 of 424 (568446)
07-05-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Asgara
07-05-2010 8:40 PM


Re: Deliberation
You are claiming that no opinions are suppressed. Yet no one, Percy or yourself included can explain to me why an evolutionist was able to start a thread as vague as Problems with Evolution-submit your question, and yet I am not allowed to start a thread which discusses the pros and cons of the Darwinian debate evidence.
I don't think any honest intellectual can say that my topic is more vague than that one. And even if you did say it was vague, as I stated, I am willing to put in in a free for all forum.
You and the moderators are acting as if having a debate which touches on the entirety of the body of evidence for the theory will someone cause the whole site to come to a crashing halt. That is pure nonsense. What is the damage that would be done by asking others to help form the case for the theory?
No clearly no damage would be done, other than to weigh the validity of the theory. Instead what is going on, is Percy is using his control over the forum , to silence a rationed retort to the theory, by forcing dissenters into impossible to manage rules. Every time someone wishes to expound further on weaknesses to the Theory as a whole, Percy, or his attack dogs cut in and try to say that one criticism or another is off topic-thus derailing any attempts to paint a holistic argument.
Dissenters already have their hands tied on this forum in so many ways-such as having to respond to ten different evolutionists on every point-often ones who continually distract from simple logic without any assistant from the site moderators to force them to debate fairly-and this is simply another way that Percy controls all outcomes.
I ask again, why does a broad topic discussion harm the site-as long as people realize the subject is broad, and as long it is in the right forum? If he feels it is spinning out of unmanageable control later on, he could always cancel it later if he wanted anyway. So there really is no excuse-other than attempts at silencing dissent-a tactic that evolutionists have been working with for years and years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 8:40 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-05-2010 11:20 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 403 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2010 2:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024