|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Like Percy said, the only reason showcase exists is because regular board members still wanted to debate the crazies like JAD, etc. There was no way they were going to be let back into the general forums because all they do there is cause disruption to the complete avail of moderation.
So there is full access on one end or banishment on the other. Both are undesireable by both admins and the EVC population. What solution do you propose to the problem? Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
That should be enough of a warning that you are wasting your time. That's pretty much what I'm saying. If it's a waste of time, why not just ban the people who would otherwise be confined to the Showcase? I get the idea of confining (for instance) Randman to one place, where he can prattle on about Haeckel all the live long day, and prevent him from doing so on every other thread on the site. Randman gets his favorite topic discussed, everyone else who doesn't want to deal with him gets a break, win-win. But giving Randman a platform for flinging shit seems like an entirely different matter. Why bother? Just ban him. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
So there is full access on one end or banishment on the other. Both are undesireable by both admins and the EVC population. What solution do you propose to the problem? See above. I propose that they get over their squeamishness regarding full banishment. Especially if they've already got the stones to go handing out one-month suspensions to otherwise valuable members. Edited by Dan Carroll, : elaboration "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ask -- "In that post of mine, where is the word "yellow". And when they say "right up there, in your post" which anybody can see is not true, what do you do then?
You can see if you can get them to look at each word of your posts and show how they read them. They've just told you how they read them - when you say "blue", they read "yellow". Either we're forced to conclude that they're the victim of a bizarre internet worm that alters words on their computer, or they're being deliberately nonsensical.
Given that they aren't just playing the fool then you can make their own posts prove the lie by getting them to say something as clear as in your simple example. What are we supposed to do when they are playing the fool in ways I can't seem to get anyone to notice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are ways to expose people for dishonesty without shouting, "liar liar pants on fire!" And what are those ways? Because apparently saying "you're being dishonest" is against the rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You can ask them to quote the sentence (Randman would probably quote a sentence from a completely different post written by someone else). But really. that's an example of the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it. Hence my conclusion that Randman's problem is not simple dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can ask them to quote the sentence In my example, that's exactly what they did - they quoted a sentence that does not say what they said it says.
But really. that's an example of the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it. I've had it happen. I've had moderators quote the very objectionable statement I had been referring to, and then claim in the very next sentence that they had never seen the statement I was referring to. (I guess they were able to cut and paste with their eyes closed?) It's these amazingly blatant examples I'm talking about, because they do happen. And it's so paradoxically impossible to get anyone to believe that it's happening. I've been suspended in the past just for trying. So I'm really curious about what we're supposed to do when it happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
IIRC, Dr. A did, in fact, stop calling randman a liar and instead dismissed (accurately and supportably, IMHO) specific utterances as lies. This may not be enough change on his part to satisfy you, but it was change, and change in the direction you urged.
If Dr. A had responded, "That is an untruth."--would that be a month-long suspension. If Dr. A had responded, "That is not true."--would that be a month-long suspension? I don't think you were a schmuck to stick up for Dr. A: in fact, I admired you for it. But Dr. A shouldn't sit out a month because the incident made you feel like a schmuck.
The Showcase forum is here only because so many people expressed an interest in discussion with the unmoderatable like Randman. But if the interest isn't so much in discussion but more in rattling the monkey cage, then Showcase should be eliminated because it simply attracts and emphasizes the worst from both sides. Bingo. Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals. -Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Of course it's about rattling a cage - once you put people in the "special section", you can call it the zoo, the showcase,whatever people soon work out that that a) most of the people in there are not well and b) conversation is a waste of time - so people take the piss. Sadly it's human nature.
Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I faced Randman arguing that an essay on talkorigins.org claimed that universal common descent was a fact when it explicitly said that universal common descent should not be considered a fact. And Randman continued blustering and arguing long after it was pointed out. I know what he's like. And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why wasn't Dr. A showcased, instead?
If they want lock lightsabers like those black and white guys from Star Trek, lock them up in the Phantom Zone together. (Take that, nerds.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty. Out of curiosity, why is calling him a liar bad, but calling him mentally ill okay? "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Either Randman and the rest know that their blatant untruths are falsehoods or they don't. I'm just suggesting the alternative that seems more likely to me. And mental illness at least carries no moral judgement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Dr Adequate and CK haved been banned. I protest: these persons should not be banned.
AdminModulous is drunk on "power" and should be relieved of his duties. He makes no sense and seems to be the stereotypical college type kid attempting to impress his older Darwinian handlers who have taken him in at the expense of EvC patrons. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Dan writes:
Same reason why people resort to not guilty for reason of insanity.
Out of curiosity, why is calling him a liar bad, but calling him mentally ill okay?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024