Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:31 PM
187 online now:
Aussie, caffeine, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 180 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,926 Year: 11,749/29,783 Month: 771/1,642 Week: 185/460 Day: 24/62 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1488 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 responded

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

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12556
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 377 of 424 (568309)
07-05-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by cavediver
07-04-2010 10:10 AM


Re: Deliberation
cavediver writes:

Has the actual cull been expunged from the history? I can't find Brenna's comments to Percy that signalled the beginning of the cull-proper.

Nothing's been deleted or edited, so whatever message you're looking for should still be out there.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by cavediver, posted 07-04-2010 10:10 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 378 of 424 (568313)
07-05-2010 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Deliberation
Bolder-dash writes:

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?


No, there's no reason. Try proposing a thread on the "merits and shortcomings of astronomy" and see if that gets promoted. The point Moose made, very correctly I might add, is that literally anything can be brought up.

Think of it this way:

Post 1 is about mutations.

Post 2 is about the 2LoT.

Post 3 is about speciation.

Post 4 is about adaptation to the natural environment.

Post 5 is about how evolution helped modern medicine along.

Do you not see this will be a mess of a thread when this happens?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 8:44 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1488 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 yet responded

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 2495 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 380 of 424 (568322)
07-05-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by crashfrog
07-04-2010 10:31 PM


Re: Sums it up
crashfrog writes:

I've long known I can't control what perception people have of me. Some people, like you, see the orange Road-Frog and just take all leave of their senses. For instance, how else to explain this exchange:

crashfrog writes:


It's not within my power, H, to punish you for your sins. I have no interest in doing so. I'm merely asking now what I asked you more than a year ago - to go forth and sin no more. The opportunity for you to do just that is as wide open as it's ever been.


Michael writes:


Your posts really can not be distinguished from those written by a complete and utter asshole.

One way to explain that "exchange" would be to put it into the proper context. You had written a short series of posts critical of Holmes/Silent H in his welcome back thread.

In message 17 of that thread you wrote (in response to NJ/Hyroglyphx):

If you left and came back, and some people were rejoicing your return, I wouldn't trash you.

I appreciate it, but if people have cause to take issue with my behavior, I'd rather than they were open about their concerns rather than simply allow me to blunder along in a way that was an obstacle to more interesting debate.

Indeed I've long begged people to do just that; I rarely have takers. Either I've managed to completely cow everybody into submission, or this rumored silent majority that finds me so insufferable simply doesn't exist.

It seemed to me that you were inviting opinions, so I obliged. Be assured that I was commenting on your posts, not in response to your avatar.

Cheers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2010 10:31 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 381 of 424 (568324)
07-05-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 8:11 AM


Re: Deliberation
Did you even read why it was refused as a topic? Or does your Christian persecution complex preclude you from even considering what the moderator said?

Your topic would encompass almost everything that this whole forum covers. It is difficult enough keeping the threads focused and now you want to have a thread that has almost no focus at all.

Here is a suggestion. Post a manageable topic and quit yourpersecution complex.

Here is an idea. Before we can even address your uber-topic we need to come to aan agreement on terms. How about you propose a topic about "neo-darwinism". For example, a comparison and contrasting of "neo-darwinism" with classical darwinism and evolution. That way we would at least know what the hell you meant by "neo-darwinism".


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:21 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1488 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 responded

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

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2183
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 383 of 424 (568329)
07-05-2010 9:23 AM


Let the Dead Bury the Dead
Pardon me for not posting recently as I have been very busy in both the personal and professional sphere, although I understand this may be quite a relief to some members.

I am glad that jar has been reinstated as he, along with Purpledawn, Ringo, and to some extent Dr Bill, have taught me more about the Bible than I would ever learn from any church or unexamined pronouncement from an unexamined life.

Perhaps with some luck, not only Ringo, but Arachnophilia, Nator, Brennakimi, and even Archer Opterix will reappear.

I also hope that all understand that we are allowed to use this forum because Percy hosts the server and does most the work to maintain it, in the end he is the owner and we are only able to participate because of his work. Challenging his ownership is an act of futility bordering on the absurd.

Now as to caused any meltdown, all I say is the King is dead, Hail the new King.

Edited by anglagard, : Replace the term Christianity with the Bible because as to the enlightened, the terms are not synonymous.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Phat, posted 07-05-2010 9:50 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 384 of 424 (568330)
07-05-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by crashfrog
07-04-2010 10:14 PM


Re: Deliberation
Er, wait, that's not the question under discussion at all. "Brutality"? Please.

I meant it metaphorically, as if moderators were in law enforcement. Did they respond with the appropriate amount of force or did they overstep their bound -- police brutality.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2010 10:14 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 385 of 424 (568331)
07-05-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 9:21 AM


Re: Deliberation
Let me point out that the problems you are perceiving should be discussed in the Topic Proposal Issues thread, you poor persecuted you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:21 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:45 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 386 of 424 (568332)
07-05-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 9:21 AM


Re: Deliberation
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.

Well, it doesn't matter since I am not a moderator. Maybe you need to ask Admin about that since he is the one that promoted it.

Oh and your persecution complex is still showing.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:21 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1488 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 yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10970
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 388 of 424 (568341)
07-05-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by anglagard
07-05-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Let the Dead Bury the Dead
anglagard writes:

Pardon me for not posting recently as I have been very busy in both the personal and professional sphere, although I understand this may be quite a relief to some members.

I am glad that you have a productive life apart from this forum, yet I am also glad to be able to communicate with you, and several others with similar character!
anglagard writes:

I also hope that all understand that we are allowed to use this forum because Percy hosts the server and does most (of)the work to maintain it, in the end he is the owner and we are only able to participate because of his work. Challenging his ownership is an act of futility bordering on the absurd.

Agreed.
Now as to(who) caused any meltdown...
In my perception, there never was any meltdown. This forum functions as it always has, and the technology just keeps getting better and better. The content, of course, is up to us!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by anglagard, posted 07-05-2010 9:23 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 389 of 424 (568386)
07-05-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by crashfrog
07-04-2010 10:08 PM


Re: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The moderator team.

No, not according to Percy

And Dan was arguing against Percy. When I told him what that would imply (that I would have suspended him) he responded: 'see how easy that was?'. Hoist on his own petard, eh?

You managed to do it within acceptable limits.

I'm well aware. After all, I had learned from Dan's mistake, and so I didn't give you an excuse.

Sounds like I did something right, after all.

I think that was implicit in the criticisms I was making. If that didn't come through then I apologize. But there was a singular reticence for moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy, which limited my ability to put forth general precepts of moderator philosophy. Anyway, who am I to decide - Percy makes the rules, not me.

Without waving in the general direction of the thread again - could you provide an example of the reticence of moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy?

Sure, but you were wrong. I mean I don't know what else you would need at this point - even NJ showed up here to tell you he was gay-baiting, just like Moose and Percy suspected he was. You're objectively in error that there was no infraction - gay-baiting is a "needling", "goading" tactic that is "disrespectful" and therefore against the forum guidelines.

As you say a certain amount of that is required to keep debate going. But from my recollection it was Berberry that would respond to NJ saying things to other people. See my first post in that thread.

The complaint against NJ was primarily that he was comparing gays to zoophiles and inferring they were equivalent, if we're now taking him at his word:

quote:
I have NEVER compared homosexuals (whom I have no objections too whatsoever these days, I'm pleased to report) to pedophiles, incest, polygamy, zoophiles, yada, yada. The evidence is all documented, and it seems that I have been vindicated by people who didn't like my former self.

quote:
But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism.

quote:
If you feel that I was baiting Berb, then okay. While I realize that I was construed as offensive, I was not trying to intentionally hurt Berb personally. By the very nature of my moral stance with homosexuality at the time, it was inevitable that he, being a gay man, would be offended on some level.

The issue is whether or not I was equivocating homosexuals as being pedophiles or zoophiles. I wasn't. I think it is overwhelming that my arguments had more to do with moral relativism than it did with anything else.


quote:
I don't think {NJ} was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?

quote:
Maybe I wasn't trying to consciously "gay-bait" but was gay-baiting.

I kept asking for evidence of infractions - moderators might be chosen (correctly or otherwise) for certain qualities, but perfect omniscience and recall isn't one of them. I tend to avoid suspending people when the evidence is a little shaky.

Well, look, I wrote the post, Mod, and let me tell you - yes, that's exactly what I was calling him. That was the point! I was trying to skirt the forum guidelines by indirectly calling EJ arrogant, baboon-faced, and the rest. (Yes, some humorous hyperbole was intended.)

That's the whole point of the indirect insult - to make someone feel like they've been insulted, while at the same time leave yourself an "out" where you can claim you've simply been misinterpreted.

Exactly! Dan had an out. I gave it to him explicitly. He closed the door on it, not me. It was an indirect insult - although my opinion was that it was an insult I didn't moderate it. But Dan didn't want the out. He ruled it out.

I keep saying I wasn't insulted.

Sigh... again, nobody thought you were.

This will go a little quicker if you can keep up, I guess.

Good - I'm glad you have now dropped the charge that I was being 'hypersensitive'.

But he didn't, not if you seriously thought he was actually telling you how to eat a banana. That's not against the forum guidelines. Saying "yes, I'm breaking the forum guidelines" isn't against the guidelines either.

Inane, crash. I didn't seriously think he was telling me how to eat a banana. I moderated on that interpretation, told Dan that my judgement call (the style of moderation he wanted) would have been to suspend him but that I wasn't going to as long as he continued with a civil tone and he responded uncivilly to confirm my interpretation was accurate and nothing more.

There's no contradiction here. Not actually being insulted makes responding as though Dan insulted you less defensible, not more.

But the charge isn't 'oversensitive' it's "suspending someone for not insulting you". Stick to one.

But that's just stupid. Why would anybody want to be suspended? If they want it, how would it be an effective punishment? If Dan wanted it, why did he complain about it?

I've explained it several times to you. Because he could use it to vindicate his belief that the moderators were capriciously suspending people. Also - suspensions aren't purely for punitive purposes...sometimes they are for others to observe and avoid the mistakes people made. Just as you apparently did.

Anyway - I missed the part where Dan complained about it - could you give me a link?

How can I know it's not? And when it's that important, why shouldn't I exercise extreme suspicion of moderator actions?

Because it hurts their feelings? Too fuckin' bad. More is at stake than that.

There is a difference between rational scepticism and radical scepticism. As I said: You could have simply posted:

quote:
I think Mod should not have suspended Dan given the fact that Dan's offence was during an argument with Mod. It looks questionable, and there's no way to be sure he wasn't just acting in anger or something worse...

Which would have been more reasonable than posting under the assumption that I was in fact acting with the worst possible intentions.

Of course Dan didn't want you to suspend him. He wanted you to suspend NJ. That was the entire point, how could you have missed that?

How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended?

And thus we were at an impasse. The participant team, though, was willing to discuss and weigh alternatives, compromises.

During time of impasse, the moderators win - unfortunately. They are the arbiters. What compromises do you think went ignored?

Edited by Modulous, : Was logged in as Admin Mod without realizing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2010 10:08 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 4:35 PM Modulous has responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 390 of 424 (568395)
07-05-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 9:21 AM


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. The moderators here DO have a sense of humor that comes out at times and I think Percy got a kick out of the .. um ... confidence displayed by the poster.

Dont be afraid to ask any question that comes to mind, I will answer and you will get the facts. I promise.

The poster has turned out to be a one-post-wonder, possibly in embarrassment at the response he got.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:21 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 6:48 PM Asgara has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018