General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

I don't recall you and I interacting before, but even if we have I have no recollection, so I'm not familiar with your posting style. There was some discussion regarding your situation in the admin forum, so I do know some of the concerns moderators have, but I won't address those since I'm not familiar with the issues first hand. In other words, I'm only giving generic advice.Follow the Forum Guidelines. Focus on the topic, not the person. If you find your posting privileges have been temporarily suspended, assume it was because you violated one or more rules of the Forum Guidelines. If moderators are kind enough to provide you some feedback about the suspension, take it to heart.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection. But not being able to bring immediatley to mind inconsequential interactions is not "rather odd". I just told you what I want.I've just suspended you again, this time for 24 hours. Let me give you a hint about how not to get suspended again. In your next reply to me, be respectful and receptive. I have no interest in or time for providing information and help for people who are actually just looking for arguments, and that's the way you appear to me. To stay here you will have to figure out how to give an impression of cooperativeness and agreeability. If you can't do that then you're welcome to take the chip on your shoulder to some other board.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To participate in that thread, you'll first have to demonstrate an understanding of empirical arguments based upon evidence, as well as the ability to produce them. And if I could anticipate your response, it is not my job nor the other moderators' job to persuade you that you don't currently possess this understanding or this ability. When you begin demonstrating this ability in the forums you currently have access to then your access to other forums can be expanded. You might also try rereading Sylas's posts about empiricism (which one day, God willing, you'll learn to spell) to see if you can figure out what he was actually saying.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I sense no change in attitude. I'm suspending you for 24 hours again. Whether you like my approach or not is not the issue. The onus is upon you to figure out what I want, not the other way around. If a time comes when I sense a sincere desire upon your part to try to fit in here then a brief dialogue might be appropriate, but not before.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

EvC Forum's original aim was to provide a venue for high quality debate on Creation/evolution. We've made some good progress toward this goal, and we'll continue to try to improve.A common problem with many discussion boards is that issues don't get resolved, and in my original vision I believed that moderators would call certain issues to a member's attention, and the member would in essence reply, "Oh, okay."Just one problem: that almost never happens. A moderator explaining why a member needs to alter his approach is rarely any more successful than other members telling him the same thing. What frequently happens is that the well-intentioned moderator gradually gets drawn into longer and longer and loooooonger explanations of the perceived problem, but the behavior rarely changes. I cite as evidence John Davison, Buzsaw, Ray Martinez (aka WillowTree), Scott Page and Buddika.Anyone who hasn't seen it yet should visit The Panda's Thumb and see where John Davison has been confined to a single forum (Page not found · GitHub Pages). We put up with his rantings here for months and months and tried a variety of techniques to get him to participate productively, but nothing worked. He causes the exact same problems at other boards that he caused here.I know John's an extreme case, but the point still holds. Those who can accomodate themselves to the requirements of this board do so almost at once with little prodding. Once it's been discovered that a little prodding is insufficient, it is generally safe to assume that more prodding, even a lot more prodding, will not work, either.The lesson in this is that I believe moderators should be merciless. I know it seems heartless for moderators to not explain problems clearly and at length, but since it doesn't work, what is the point? My position is that the Forum Guidelines are simple and straightforward. Argue the position not person, stick to the evidence, address rebuttals, listen to moderators. Angry men (or women) looking to mix it up or who prefer to operate from a position of perpetual righteous indignation should find another board.Naturally moderators here are their own boss, and there's no requirement that other moderators follow my lead. The lesson that explaining things doesn't help probably should be learned first hand, anyway. And the explanations frequently serve as an important confirmation of our policies to other members who do have the interest and the ability to follow the Forum Guidelines and make this the best board on the web for Creation/evolution.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

All I can say is that I agree with most everything you say. Today was the first time I checked in with the meteor thread. I didn't realize Faith had become active in a science topic again. I only read back about 30 posts. I'll try to keep a closer eye on Faith. It's been a busy week and she slipped under my radar.Rox deserves credit for doing yeoman's work in the face of profound and willful ignorance and an attitude toward science that would feel right at home in the Dark Ages, but he knows he can't write posts like that. I've said many times, one guidelines violation doesn't justify another.My goal is to achieve balance in holding members to the Forum Guidelines. Ideally this would mean each side was equally happy with me, but I guess I'll have to settle for each side being equally mad.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Charles Knight has pretty much hit the problem on the head. Continuing to engage Peaceharris along his chosen line of argument would have required explaining why the phrase "cliffs the color of coal" in a travel article does not constitute evidence of coal. Someone who needs this explained either isn't being serious or doesn't belong here or has some kind of problem that I'm not interested in making EvC Forum's problem.Early on in the Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion thread I complemented Peaceharris for focusing on the evidence, see Message 38. He consistently supported his points with images and links, more so than any other Creationist who has ever been here. Like you, I was impressed. But as his points were addressed he began ignoring rebuttals and inquiries, repeating unsupported assertions, and finally began posting irrelevant links and images. The final straw came in Peaceharris's Message 169 when he combined insult and ignominy by calling Randy's arguments stupid, by casting serious doubt that he would sincerely address rebuttals, and by insisting that the description "cliffs the color of coal" in a travel article constituted evidence of coal.I agree he was probably doing the best he could, but I suspended him because the best he could manage was to employ the strategy I call "I'm frustrated so I'm going to waste everyone's time by making outrageous arguments and sticking with them no matter what".The suspension was only for 24 hours. It was intended to make clear the point that EvC Forum doesn't negotiate with each member as to the level of adherence to the Forum Guidelines they'll be held to. EvC Forum *does* have standards, and the problem for moderators is to enforce them objectively without being influenced by the fact that some offenders cut a more sympathetic figure than others. To return to my old speed limit analogy, the upstanding citizen deserves no more a break for speeding than does the ne'er-do-well.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Lol! You'll have to do better than that to get suspended. Try instead saying, "I'm not going to follow the Forum Guidelines or listen to moderators." While I wouldn't allow the application of denigrating labels to other members in other threads because of the potential for discussion to spin out of control, if you want to call me names in this thread go right ahead.I'm afraid nothing you've said changes my mind. Explanations have very rarely effected change in behavior. People pretty much conduct themselves in the longterm the same way they begin. In fact, if there's any noticeable trend, the longer one is a member the worse (bolder, one might say) one's behavior becomes. It's almost as if members begin to feel a sense of entitlement to conduct themselves as they please.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Here's a slightly different administrative viewpoint. While Faith's perspectives on religion and science are widespread within the fundamentalist community and deserve full representation here, her inability to follow the Forum Guidelines and remain civil while engaged in discussion with those she disagrees with is not felt to be an inherent nor even common component of the fundamentalist viewpoint. She is using her religious beliefs to excuse what is inexcusable behavior, especially in a follower of Christ.As far as this moderator is concerned, the leniency shown toward Creationists is only regarding their ability to form coherent, evidence-based arguments. Christians incapable of maintaining a civil demeanor will receive temporary suspensions of posting privileges, just like anyone else.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-13-2005 09:44 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi CanadianSteve,I think the best approach would be for you to work toward getting your topic proposal approved over at Does Islam Need a Reformation?.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The suggestion to Eltonian to post here was so it could be discussed whether more respect should be shown toward Christian beliefs in the religious forums, not so that the topic of a discussion thread could be moved here.While we don't call it "showing respect", it seems somewhat the same thing that we don't allow people to propose ideas in violation of known physical laws without good reason. In the science forums we wouldn't let someone to argue, "Gravity is only a theory, so objects could start falling up tomorrow." Might it be the same thing to say in the religious forums, "The Bible is only a book, Jesus may never have existed." At least if said without substantiation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Knowledge doesn't have to be accepted knowledge to be offered in support of a point. What's most important is that the knowledge be intelligently and rationally presented, and be supported with argumentation and/or evidence. For example, I don't think it would be acceptable to argue in the religious forums, "Jesus didn't even exist, so he couldn't possibly have said what is claimed," without first providing strong evidence or argument that Jesus didn't actually exist. To not do so would be equivalent in the science forums to arguing, "Well, the Big Bang never happened, so science's claims about cosmological origins are false," without first providing strong evidence or argument that the Big Bang never actually happened. Or at least supporting the claim when asked.About bulletin board lawyers, several times a year we do get people who join and then spend most of their time complaining about the rules or the moderation or whatever. Suffice to say that the weight given to such complaints is a function of the credibility built through participation here over time. To do otherwise would be to be drift with the latest breeze.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't usually involve myself in the religious forums, so I hope another moderator will take a look.I did read Message 63. Since I didn't read the rest of thread my comments are not very informed, but I did get the sense while reading it that some of the disagreements hinge on the definition of terms (e.g., jihad), and that perhaps it might be better to reach agreement there before moving on to actual issues.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Gilda Radner created the Emily Litella character on Saturday Night Live. After the anchorperson would inform Emily of her error ("Emily, it's the "death penalty", not the "deaf penalty"), Emily would conclude, "Oh, that's very different. Never mind!"But what if Emily had instead responded, "That's nice, dear. Now, about the deaf penalty..."I think Jazzns is feeling like you're not hearing his concerns about the appropriateness of moving forward with the discussion before establishing sufficient common ground, and that you might be building conclusions upon points still in dispute.I don't have time to moderate this thread in a proper way, but I hope this is helpful. Perhaps another moderator will chime in.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The setting is part of your profile, there are radio buttons for this below the box for the Avatar pathname. Just leave the avatar pathname field blank and set the radio buttons to "Yes" to display your avatar, then click on Update Avatar.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director