General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

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

Hi Percy, thanks for your reply to my post. Can I say that I do understand why you cut Faith so much slack and also spent so much time trying to help her understand what "evidence" actually means. We are very short on creationists who can string an argument together. However, I would suggest that Faith's latest performance demonstrates that she lacks the ability to do this where science is concerned and has no intention of learning. Moreover it is evident that she will continually and wilfully flout forum guidelines in every science discussion that takes place.To your credit you attempted to help her and you managed to keep smiling long past where I would have been tearing my hair out. For that alone you deserve a medal! It ended as most of these things do, however, when she turned on you. Your attempts to help buzsaw ended the same way and when Sylas took over with buzsaw, the same thing happened.Maybe we just have to accept that attempts to help people with the forum guidelines are doomed to failure. After all, if they're posting here they can obviously read and write and so shouldn't have problems with the guidelines. If they're ignoring the guidelines, cutting them some slack isn't going to help, it's just going to make matters worse.I think this came up before, but would it be possible to have a "Report this post" button? At least that way you wouldn't have to plod through hundreds of posts to find the problem ones. I liked Tony's idea of a system whereby malicious reporting would earn the complainant a penalty to discourage overuse. At the moment there is no system visible and I have to admit that I'm not keen on e-mailing admin with a whinge, but if a "Report this post" button was there it would feel less like telling tales out of school and more like helping admin to do a difficult job of policing all the posts.Also, given that roxrkool put up with so much before he flipped, would a "two strikes and you're out" be fairer, ie one warning then suspension?I do appreciate all the work done by the moderators and I do understand that sometimes things get missed.The one hilarious thing about all of this is that Faith still thinks she gets a raw deal!

Hi, Trix, when a persecution complex is the basis of your beliefs, any reproof serves to feed the monster. While we all have a tendency to believe we are right, that doesn`t mean basic manners should be thrown out the window when we come up against a different viewpoint. Of course, a 100 posts later when you are still belabouring the point might stretch the most patient of posters.

Your statements above are worthy of POM, Rrhain, but I won't. I've finally found something I can agree with you on.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hey Trix,Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your standing up for me. Thank you. I also wanted to say that I do think what I posted, albeit true, was suspension-worthy. After reading what I wrote in reply to Faith's latest insanity, I knew without a doubt I would be suspended for it.Second thoughts lasted a split second before I pushed the submit button.I still stand by my statements and it was worth it.Thanks again.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-29-2005 11:12 PM

Admin responds to me:

quote:

---

Explanations have very rarely effected change in behavior.

---

But you don't do it for the people who won't listen to you. As you pointed out, nothing you say will ever make them listen.Instead, you do it for those who do listen. By telling the people who don't want to run afoul of the rules that you don't give a fig about explaining to them why they screwed up, they will never be able to respect or understand any decision you do make.After all, they're not worthy of you.It's your board. You run it at your pleasure. But I have to wonder why you do it when you treat the readers here with such contempt.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

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.

---

Are we ready to talk like adults yet?

There can be SOME discussion of moderation procedures, but the various admins (and perhaps especially Admin) no longer wish to have drawn out discussions of such. You need to adopt some flexibility to fit in at , and be willing to accept the desires of the various admins.I've made a substantially extra effort to have you permitted to participate here, including a fair number of e-mail conversations. Now it's up to your efforts, to fit into this forum.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

There can be SOME discussion of moderation procedures, but the various admins (and perhaps especially Admin) no longer wish to have drawn out discussions of such. You need to adopt some flexibility to fit in at , and be willing to accept the desires of the various admins.

---

If so much "flexibility" is required that I am expected to ignore flagrant violations of the board rules by the moderators themselves, or have threads shut down, then there is no point at all. Because under those conditions, constructive discussion of anything is impossible.You have indeed gone out of your way to allow me to participate here, but it remains to be determined whether I wish to participate. Frankly there are better things to do do with my time than hanging around somewhere that I am likely to be abused as an "agitator" and this cheap ad hominem used to dismiss my position, or when accusations of "pushing buttons" are used likewise. Acknowledging the existance of actual differences of opinion is the first step in any meaningful discussion of anything.Equally, there is not much point in initiating or entering any discussion if, as in the case of the thread with Arachnophilia, calling for the support of a position results in the thread being closed. Thats directly contrary to the stated principles of the board, yet neither explanation nor apology has been forthcoming.It is reasonable to ask for flexibility, it is not reasonable to ask for outright submission to a set of standards to which others will not be held. What possible incentive could I have for doing so?The very unwillingness of the moderators to enter into discussion of these issues implies that the same double standard will be applied in the future. Percy asks to see a sincere desire on my part to fit in here, but there can be no such sincere desire on my part until I have some reason to believe that the moderators have a sincere desire to uphold their stated principles.

Moderation efforts at are doomed to being flawed - All the various admins can do is to try to get the various members to strive to cooperate in following the forum rules/guidelines. We can't now fix what has happened in the past - At this point, what we need to do is to put the past failings of both the admins and the various members behind us.I think the bottom line is that Contracycle needs to "seize the moral high ground", to himself truly strive to follow the guidelines. Don't fall to the level of the failings of others. If you (Contracycle) are "a good boy", and your debate adversaries are not "good boys", then they and not you will be the ones getting the suspensions.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Moderation efforts at are doomed to being flawed - All the various admins can do is to try to get the various members to strive to cooperate in following the forum rules/guidelines. We can't now fix what has happened in the past - At this point, what we need to do is to put the past failings of both the admins and the various members behind us.

---

Thats nice. But your actual response in practice has been as follows: refusing to discuss the situation, imposing temporary suspensions, and threatening permanent suspensions, all to avoid admitting a mistake that YOU made. That is not the behaviour of a responsible moderating team who are actually attempting to do a good job - that is coverup, evasion, and the abuse of power to conceal fault.Of course you cannot fix the past, but you also cannot simultaneously claim sympathy for your potential to make mistakes and also claim the total inviolability and infallibility of your decisions. Furthermore, if you do admit the posibility of mistakes, then the adult thing to do is to apologise, not to stand on your authority and insist you can do no wrong.Therefore, when you say: "If you (Contracycle) are "a good boy", and your debate adversaries are not "good boys", then they and not you will be the ones getting the suspensions.", there is in fact no reason whatsoever to think that this will be the case based on past experience. After all, if the moderators are happy to have among their number some who use openly abusive language like "agitator" in order to avoid having to deal with a point, then clearly whether or not I am a "good boy" matters not at all in the face of such prejudice.Why are we having this conversation, after all? Because I challenged a moderators decision to close a thread... a thread in which the party guilty of persistently failing to support their argument received no sanction whatsoever.Therefore I ask you again: are you willing to undetake to start implementing your stated principles? It is a yes or no question, really, please provide an appropriate answer.

The various admins, including myself, do the best we can. Mistakes are made - Believe me, there are debates in the "Private Administration Forum", about how to handle situations. We can also debate such in this topic, but after a little discussion the sensible thing for all is to just "put it behind us and move on". I don't think any of the admins "claim infallibility". Many situations are such that there is no easy, clear cut proper admin action. But some action needs to be taken, even if it is flawed. If an action I took was blatantly wrong, I will and have apologized. But many admin actions fall into "gray area" situations. Again, what we need to do is "put it behind us and move on". My memory of the specifics is weak, but my guess is that you are referring to Schrafinator. Personally, I think the use of the term "agitator" may or may not be "abusive", depending on the context. Yes, there were several, including Schrafinator, Arachnophilia, and Contracycle, that were part of the turmoil. BUT (IMO) the focus (and main contributer?) of the turmoil was Contracycle, and the admins needed to deal with the focus. Again, some action needed to be taken, even if it is flawed.As I suggested in one or more e-mails, why not a "Great Debate" between you and Schrafinator or Arachnophilia or whomever? In such context the admins have a chance of doing better moderation. I have long lost track of which topic you are referring to. I will gladly admit, that I tend to be the one admin who is most subject to closing troubled topics. I feel that that is the only effective action that can be taken - The topic would otherwise probably never come back to being a quality discussion. Again, how about a "Great Debate" on that closed topics subject? All I can say is, the various admins try to do the best then can. I repeat, " Moderation efforts at are doomed to being flawed". I also repeat, "We can also debate such in this topic, but after a little discussion the sensible thing for all is to just "put it behind us and move on"".There you have it - My flawed response. It's the best you are going to get out of me. The bottom line is, either accept that moderation efforts will be imperfect, or just go away.Adminnemooseus

test.(phew I thought I'd be banned for some unknown reason).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Jun-2005 04:44 PM

No, I refuse that outright.Contracycle's charge:

quote:

---

Equally, there is not much point in initiating or entering any discussion if, as in the case of the thread with Arachnophilia, calling for the support of a position results in the thread being closed. Thats directly contrary to the stated principles of the board, yet neither explanation nor apology has been forthcoming.

---

As you may or may not remember, contracycle did call for support. Repeatedly. In fact, he called for so much support, after support had already been given in excess, that the thread just became one request for evidence after the next. Which was pretty damned annoying.On top of that, contracycle kept arguing his position after clear evidence had been provided by multiple members that his assertions were obviously wrong. He was espousing a position that was undefendable: one cannot defend a negative statement. Saying "no bronze age culture had a concept of collective hospitality" is nice, but it;s about like arguing there's no god. All you can prove is that one has not been found, not that none exist.And in this case, when one was pointed out to him as support that possibly a bible story regarded hospitality collectively, he balked at it and refused to answer. And just kept arguing his point. Further, when a list of myths and stories with similar setups regarding hospitality (although most no collective) were presented. a LONG list. He failed to see the point that if a story contains many elements similar to a certain type of myth, it probably is one whether or not it expresses it the same way.Further, it was demonstrated that not only was his assumption completely wrong (the text was not bronze age, as he was arguing), but that my position has been regarded as orthodox for nearly two thousand years. Heck, I quoted the talmud, midrashim, and Josephus.And he still kept asking for evidence, when he had not presented anything of worth himself. He presented two essays on bronze-age economy. But as I just pointed out, they don't exactly apply. And so the thread just became him asking for more and more and more evidence, and not accepting any of the massive amounts presented to him. It's about the same argung transitional fossils with a creationist. "Nope, that doesn't count. No, neither does that one. Or that one. Still nope."It was annoying, and did not further any kind of academic discussion. Asking for evidence for assertions is all well and good, but not as a technique to "win" arguments by frustrating your opponent until they get tired of arguing with you about the evidence they already have presented.He was also guilty of repeated ad hominen attacks in that particular thread. If you can't win the debate, attack the debator. Now, I will admit to one myself. I *DID* call him an idiot, once towards the end. But it was because he showed GROSS unfamiliarity with the topic he was arguing. He made a couple of claims that demonstrated he did not the difference between the torah and the talmud, and the fact that the torah is the same exact thing as the christian penteteuch, and then based an argument on it. He of course returned with a much nastier attack. I really should have known better. http://EvC Forum: Sodom and Lot, historicity and plausibility of Genesis 19 Contracycle is not willing to debate in good faith, nor accept any evidence from the opposition, nor post any himself. He simply wants to agitate and "win" his arguments.If he could demonstrate that he is willing to participate here in an orderly and polite manner, and also debate in good faith, I might consider it. But then there wouldn't be much debate, would there?

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

The various admins, including myself, do the best we can. Mistakes are made - Believe me, there are debates in the "Private Administration Forum", about how to handle situations. We can also debate such in this topic, but after a little discussion the sensible thing for all is to just "put it behind us and move on".

---

The adult response to making mistakes is to say "sorry", not to say "this decision is infallible and any challenge to it will be taken as further evidence of your delinquency". And it is that adult behaviour that has been conspicuous by its absence.And you keep talking about "putting it behind us and moving on", but you always want it to NOT be put behind us, and still treat me as a supplicant. If you want to put it behind you and move on, you cannot pick and choose on the items.

quote:

---

My memory of the specifics is weak, but my guess is that you are referring to Schrafinator. Personally, I think the use of the term "agitator" may or may not be "abusive", depending on the context. Yes, there were several, including Schrafinator, Arachnophilia, and Contracycle, that were part of the turmoil. BUT (IMO) the focus (and main contributer?) of the turmoil was Contracycle, and the admins needed to deal with the focus. Again, some action needed to be taken, even if it is flawed.

---

No, I am referring to Jar, who attempted to excuse my argument by a spurious appeal to my alleged psychology. I therefore raised a thread to complain of this abuse, and that resulted in the objection first being rejected by Percy, and then my being suspended. Quite clearly, no abuse perpetrated by moderators will incur any action; and complaints against a moderator result in the suspension of the plaintiff. That is abuse of power, plain and simple.

quote:

---

I have long lost track of which topic you are referring to. I will gladly admit, that I tend to be the one admin who is most subject to closing troubled topics. I feel that that is the only effective action that can be taken - The topic would otherwise probably never come back to being a quality discussion. Again, how about a "Great Debate" on that closed topics subject?

---

The problem is, as we see in Arachnophilia's post below yours, he is still misrepresenting the topic. The claim he made and which I challenged was "the consensus of academic opinion is that Soddom was destroyed for a failure of hospitality". I pointed out that I found this implausible, and that I could find no trace of any such academic consensus - the only place such claims can be found is precisely in this very argument. Therefore, I wanted external verifcation of this alleged consensus of acdemic opinion - after all, if it is as broad a consensus as Arachnophilia claims, that should not be too hard.No evidence has been forthcoming whatsoever. Instead Arachnophilia attempted to drag the argument onto other topics, as he continues to do here. And further, we see the habitual resort to personal abuse as when he says "He simply wants to agitate and "win" his arguments." Faced by the fact his argument is dishonest and evasive, he makes an appeal, once more, to my alleged mentality.Thats wholly unacceptable. If the moderators were fulfilling the role they claim to fill, and for which they demand respect, then Arachnophilia should have been compelled to demonstrate the existance of this alleged academic consensus or withdraw his argument. And all the closure of the thread served to do was protect him from this embarrasment.

quote:

---

There you have it - My flawed response. It's the best you are going to get out of me. The bottom line is, either accept that moderation efforts will be imperfect, or just go away.

---

The problem is that I have always accepted it - the problem is that the MODERATORS do not accept they are fallible. When they make mistakes, they do not apologise or correct but merely apply more force until the problem goes away.Thus, from my perspective, the bottom line can only be: are you willing to undetake to start implementing your stated principles? It is a yes or no question, really, please provide an appropriate answer.Will you be needing another week to consider one? That can easily be arranged.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-09-2005 04:04 AMThis message has been edited by contracycle, 06-09-2005 04:04 AM