Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 3:09 PM
447 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,182 Year: 6,788/21,208 Month: 2,549/2,634 Week: 212/525 Day: 45/82 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
46Next
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12451
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 601 of 683 (667672)
07-11-2012 3:25 AM


vangore is a link spammer
For example Message 22
  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 602 of 683 (667678)
07-11-2012 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 600 by Panda
07-10-2012 4:16 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Hi Panda,

Thanks for the reply, I think I might have this now, let's see.

Panda writes:

I agreed that you were misconstruing (but not intentionally) what CF had written.

Ideally what would have helped me the most is a clear statement of what Crashfrog actually meant (e.g., "By 'introducing the topic' it was only meant that..."), so I suppose I'm guessing again. Did Crashfrog only mean that he wasn't the first to mention dishonesty? That's true, he wasn't, and I've already mentioned that, but I don't think it's relevant. Catholic Scientist's mention of dishonesty was in passing and didn't have any discernible impact on discussion. Crashfrog's was persistent and central to his messages, for example:

crashfrog in Message 150 writes:

It's the dishonesty, how they're lying now about what positions they originally took.

Here Crash actually touts himself as a tenacious punisher of dishonesty:

crashfrog in Message 163 writes:

If you have read my posts, then you know that when I've genuinely misunderstood someone and they correct me in response, I accept it and move on. It's when I haven't and they pretend I have that it derails the thread, because it's dishonest to claim that the axis of disagreement was all just a big misunderstanding as a dodge when you're losing the debate, and when people started trying to do that to me I decided I wasn't going to allow it. I didn't allow Dronester to get away with it, I didn't allow PD to get away with it, and I won't allow you and Mod to get away with it either. And the ultimate result of those discussions was that Dronester and PD lost all credibility in debate because everyone could see how dishonest they were, and I gained a reputation for tenacity. And the same thing is going to happen here because of your dishonesty.
...
If you weren't lying...
...
But that's a lie. It's dishonest...
...
I'm telling you that I really and truly do understand what you were saying, and that you are really and truly lying about what you were saying now.
...
That proves that I correctly understood you at the time and that you're lying, now.

But Crashfrog is not a member of the moderator team. EvC Forum does not need vigilantes. If this is how Crashfrog sees himself then he should stop. I don't know in what threads Crash carried out similar campaigns against Dronester and PD, but they have my sympathy.

The thread is in Free For All now so it doesn't matter, but debate participants should be making points that bear directly on the topic rather than on the people they're debating with.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by Panda, posted 07-10-2012 4:16 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 8:08 AM Admin has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 603 of 683 (667684)
07-11-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Admin
07-10-2012 1:58 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
So what is the view you *do* hold?

That turnabout is fair play. If my opponents are going to make false charges of dishonesty against me, they can hardly claim that it's off-topic when I make true ones against them.

And when they respond to your accusations of dishonesty will you again accuse them of trying to introduce dishonesty as a topic?

Since I didn't do that the first time, how could I do it "again"?

If someone's being dishonest or stupid or wrong or confused it is really only necessary to point out the facts.

No, I disagree; I think you need more context than that. Sometimes you really do have to explicitly say "here's why you're wrong; here's where you were dishonest" and then present the facts. I've had it happen where what I intended as contradiction was interpreted as agreement, and vice-versa. You have to be more specific about how facts relate to an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 1:58 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 604 of 683 (667685)
07-11-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by Admin
07-11-2012 5:52 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
But Crashfrog is not a member of the moderator team. EvC Forum does not need vigilantes.

I agree, which is why I said

quote:
But I guess I shouldn't try to moderate. Not really my place, I suppose.

back in Message 592.

If this is how Crashfrog sees himself then he should stop.

Well, ok. You seem to be of two minds about this, though; when I told you I would stop, you said

quote:
That's not necessary. When I made my moderator comments I failed to notice that AdminPhat had already moved the thread to Free For All, so my comments don't apply. And Modulous says he has no objections to an unmoderated thread. CS hasn't said anything, so I assume it must be okay with him. Have at it.

You're like a Katy Perry song about this, so pardon my confusion. But, ok. You want me to stop, so I will.

I don't know in what threads Crash carried out similar campaigns against Dronester and PD, but they have my sympathy.

I didn't do say anything to Dronester or PD that they didn't ask me to say, so no sympathy is required. Both were explicit in their request that I show them saying the things they asserted that they did not say - PD even opened a thread to that specific purpose - and I did so.

The thread is in Free For All now so it doesn't matter, but debate participants should be making points that bear directly on the topic rather than on the people they're debating with.

I don't know how to debate with a liar except to demonstrate that they're lying. Judging by how people respond to Buzsaw, nobody else seems to know, either. Regardless I'd appreciate any suggestions that you or anyone else had on that subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 5:52 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 10:50 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 606 by AdminPD, posted 07-11-2012 10:55 AM crashfrog has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 605 of 683 (667689)
07-11-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by crashfrog
07-11-2012 8:08 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
crashfrog writes:

Well, ok. You seem to be of two minds about this, though; when I told you I would stop, you said

quote:
That's not necessary. When I made my moderator comments I failed to notice that AdminPhat had already moved the thread to Free For All, so my comments don't apply. And Modulous says he has no objections to an unmoderated thread. CS hasn't said anything, so I assume it must be okay with him. Have at it.

I am not of two minds, but EvC Forum does have two different types of forums. The thread is now in Free For All, and that is an unmoderated forum (as it happens, it's the only unmoderated forum). If you want to play vigilante there be my guest.

I don't know how to debate with a liar except to demonstrate that they're lying. Judging by how people respond to Buzsaw, nobody else seems to know, either. Regardless I'd appreciate any suggestions that you or anyone else had on that subject.

The best suggestion I can make is to follow the Forum Guidelines which request that discussion be kept impersonal and focused on the topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 8:08 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 606 of 683 (667690)
07-11-2012 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by crashfrog
07-11-2012 8:08 AM


You Stick to the Topic
quote:
I don't know how to debate with a liar except to demonstrate that they're lying. Judging by how people respond to Buzsaw, nobody else seems to know, either. Regardless I'd appreciate any suggestions that you or anyone else had on that subject.
1. Stick to revealing errors or omissions in your opponent's facts or logic concerning the topic.

2. When someone informs you that you have misunderstood their position and corrects you, take the correction and continue debating the topic. Give them the benefit of the doubt and stop assuming they are lying.

3. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then debate another part of their argument if there is one.

4. If you still can't manage that, then stop debating with that person in that thread, but don't call them a liar or dishonest and then leave. That is not a good tactic and makes you look bad.

That's my suggestion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 8:08 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 11:12 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 607 of 683 (667691)
07-11-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by AdminPD
07-11-2012 10:55 AM


Re: You Stick to the Topic
That's all very well and good, but that's a list of suggestions for talking to people who are debating in good faith - not a list of suggestions for talking to people who are debating in bad faith.

If nothing else, it sort of reveals that the style of moderation you all are practicing is not particularly robust in the face of bad faith. From the ratings games, to the subtle misrepresentation of debate and metadebate - none of you all were able to catch Holmes doing it, even, and it was a constant thing with him - to outright lies and chicanery, there doesn't seem to be any moderator response besides "it's against the rules to accuse your opponents of doing those things."

It's like being at a bank where the security policy is "since it's so important to make our customers feel like the bank cannot be robbed, no one can, at any time, accuse anyone of robbing the bank." At some point you really do have to refer to the people who are carrying out bags of cash that don't belong to them "bank robbers." This was the objection that I first raised years ago, when this "no calling people liars" thing first started, and the result was exactly what I predicted it would be - a massive explosion in bad faith arguing and misrepresentation, because it's easier for moderators to recognize and punish accusations of dishonesty than actual dishonesty. After all, if a participant really does completely misrepresent something someone else said pages ago, which of you is going to bother to go and check?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by AdminPD, posted 07-11-2012 10:55 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12394
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 608 of 683 (667696)
07-11-2012 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by crashfrog
07-11-2012 11:12 AM


Re: You Stick to the Topic
The analogy I'd use is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The problem you have is that you're yelling "fire" every time someone lights a cigarette. If you're so hypersensitive to inconsistency (a fairly common human trait) that you see lying and dishonesty as a significant issue then you should find another way to spend your spare time.

In any event, what you're doing is against the Forum Guidelines. Stick to the facts, stick to explaining the facts, stick to explaining how the facts fit together, stick to the topic. You can even point out inconsistencies to your heart's content, but if you're going to draw conclusions of lying and dishonesty then please keep them to yourself.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 11:12 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2012 12:44 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 609 of 683 (667709)
07-11-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Admin
07-11-2012 12:03 PM


Re: You Stick to the Topic
The problem you have is that you're yelling "fire" every time someone lights a cigarette.

No, that's not true. I hardly ever point out these deceptions. The exchange with Mod, and earlier with PD and Dronester - events that both happened a year ago or more - is somewhat of an exception since he asked, specifically, that the charges against him be substantiated in excruciating detail (up to the point where he needed line-by-line duplication of the material before he would even address it.) My last exchange with Holmes about this was more than five years ago.

I'm not even the one who brought it up in this thread. Mod complained, remember, that I was providing exactly what he asked for. If I was "you're a liar" all the time, every time, that would be one thing, but i'm obviously not. I'm not even the guy, as AdminPD suggests, who won't ever admit that he misunderstood someone.

I admit that all the time. Message 253 is an example where I admitted it to Jon in the middle of an incredibly contentious "historical Jesus" thread. In Message 312 we see an example of what I'm talking about - claims of "misunderstanding" giving the appearance of being used disingenuously to conceal a retreat. Regardless, I tried to be the bigger person and apologized for the misunderstanding. Jar chose not to explain what his position actually was. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I've misunderstood someone, when I have. Sometimes even when I haven't. This notion that I'm completely intransigent on this issue is a rumor being spread by a small number of people who found themselves unable to convince me that I had misunderstood them, because the accusation that I had was, quite transparently, a ruse meant to conceal a shift in position.

In any event, what you're doing is against the Forum Guidelines.

As you wish, I'll no longer pursue that conversation with Mod or anyone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 1066 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 610 of 683 (668018)
07-16-2012 5:29 AM


Spammer.
ruby01 is a signature spammer.

CRYSTALS!!

Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 611 of 683 (668154)
07-17-2012 6:49 PM


frako
Admins:

I think frako's postings could be of a much higher quality. They are border-line spam and clogging the forums with trash. Few creationists would last as long here as frako has were they to post messages of a similar (non-)quality.

I think he's been skating by because his messages are mostly anti-religious and thus few atheists are making a fuss over his deliberately hateful and pointless gibberish.

But I really hate to see EvC forum's standards dragged down by the juvenile actions of a single member who treats this site like an Internet chat room for pre-teens rather than a place for people serious about the issues discussed here to have adult conversations with fellow adults.

I don't believe I am the only one here who feels this way and so hopefully something can be done about this issue.

Thanks,
Jon


Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by Shield, posted 07-17-2012 6:57 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply
 Message 613 by frako, posted 07-18-2012 5:25 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply
 Message 614 by AdminModulous, posted 07-18-2012 9:56 AM Jon has responded

Shield
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


(2)
Message 612 of 683 (668155)
07-17-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by Jon
07-17-2012 6:49 PM


Re: frako
Frako might post too many bad posts, but he has a lot of really good ones too..

his deliberately hateful and pointless gibberish

I see none of that by frako...

You're overreacting IMHO.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Jon, posted 07-17-2012 6:49 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2678
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(3)
Message 613 of 683 (668189)
07-18-2012 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by Jon
07-17-2012 6:49 PM


Re: frako
My guess is you dint like the post i made at the ark topic i intentionally dumbed it down so most creationists would understand that not knowing what steel is douring the bronze age cant be fixed as easely as most of you think like, god told him how to make it. Making steel is complicated you need to melt down iron ore something the bronze age people dint know what was, in a blast furnace that they dint have using coke something else bronze age people dint know what it is. And at this stage you onlly arive at iron you still haveto make this iron in to steel, because iron is too bendy and the boat would leek the first time it would shift in the water.

The easiest way to make steel is to blow air TROUGH the molten iron something they dint have the capability to do, or the second way is to add carbon in to a carbon free form of iron something witch they dind not have and could not do.

Now that you have the steel you haveto make sheets from it so you can coat the outer hull with them. U cant use an anivl and a hammer because you need BIG sheets if you dont want the boat to sink or leak or both. So you need to pour the molten steel in to say a beam wait for it to become red hot from white hot then move that beem trough a series of rollers to flatten it over and over again so you end up with an inch thick large steel plate. To do this you would need to invent some kind of ox powered geared system to power the rollers the smallest problem to solve but still technology they did not have.

Since most normal people know this i made a joke about it. God trying to explain to someone who does not even know what iron is how to make steel. Straight to the point and no wall of text for you to skim over and grab a sentence you could misquote me on to try and prove you creationist point.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Jon, posted 07-17-2012 6:49 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Phat, posted 07-18-2012 10:12 AM frako has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


(1)
Message 614 of 683 (668202)
07-18-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 611 by Jon
07-17-2012 6:49 PM


Re: frako
I'm not entirely certain what the problem is. Granted, there are some of frako's posts that aren't excellent, and I'd agree that some are of low quality. Frako has even received recent moderator attention because of this.

I don't have the time to do a complete audit of recent posts by frako, but if you had some examples in mind you could post them so that we can take a look. It would also be interesting to see if you have any suggestions for how this issue should be dealt with.

It would probably wise to note that you too have a tendency to make lots of short posts, some even one word long. Indeed, one of your recent posts managed the economy of just four characters (three of which were letters). You have of course received suspension when you managed to simply reply with a single word insult (Message 25). So if we're going to 'police' 'border-line spam' or 'clogging the forums' or a general low level of quality - you might find yourself hoist on your own petard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Jon, posted 07-17-2012 6:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by Jon, posted 07-18-2012 10:54 AM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9268
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 615 of 683 (668204)
07-18-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by frako
07-18-2012 5:25 AM


Frako Fracas and Jons Complaint
Frako,responding to Jon writes:

Since most normal people know this i made a joke about it. God trying to explain to someone who does not even know what iron is how to make steel. Straight to the point and no wall of text for you to skim over and grab a sentence you could misquote me on to try and prove you creationist point.

Now that I read many of your posts, I think that you do occasionally try and take jabs at creationism by implying that they are dumb! ( ) To be fair, Jon is not a creationist, at least not of the biblical literalism variety. And the peanut gallery of ratings commentators are also occasionally guilty of being trite. Personally, as an admin, I overlook lots of things, since over policing some topics simply bogs them down. I'm beginning to think that if a topic gets out of hand we ought just move it to Free For All and let the contestants throw jabs at each other!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by frako, posted 07-18-2012 5:25 AM frako has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
3940
41
4243
...
46Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017