Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 300 (238013)
08-28-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AdminJar
08-28-2005 12:36 PM


nuancing the dodge.
adminjar writes:
We need to be constantly reminded of their presence, their beliefs, their capabilities and limitations. They should be allowed pretty much free rein so that those characteristics may be demonstrated to all.
I think it's a little more nuanced than that.
I think there is a clear and intentional bias for two main reasons:
(1) the proportion of people from each camp is different, with a higher proportion of evos defending evolution than creos defending creationism, and this means that they speak for more. If you had a steady flow of creos through the site it would be a different matter.
I also think that over half of americans really don't care one way or the other (because science is for kids that don't play football, and we all know how important football is to education).
The debate is between the 20% at each end of the spectrum that care a lot about the issue.
(2) When you eliminate one side by edict then the need for the site vanishes. This is also an empty "victory" (like winning a football game when the other team doesn't show up)
But in addition there is another factor in this issue, and that is one of knowing how to do science use logic and develop hypothesis from data. It's not so much that those on the creo side are unable to do this as much as it is a fact that they are {by and large\usually\by circumstance beyond their control} untrained in {doing\recognizing\understanding} it (Personally I think this is an area of education that has failed america: teaching logical thought and rational evaluation techiques).
One has to make allowances for people who are learning (some more reluctantly than others) while debating what is considered acceptable to the other side. It's like negotiating your trial for shoplifting bottled water while learning the language at the same time.
That said, there are two rules that I think should be strictly enforced, (1) absolutely no gratuitous ad hominems even by inference (it's so easy to do and so easy to follow suit ... I find myself doing little "digs" and try to minimize them and hold them to concepts not to the posters of the concepts) and (2) providing evidence for a challenged position or withdrawing the statement (including whether your "quote" of another's position is correct or not).
The first is unnecessary for anyone's position, without the second there is no debate but a shouting match with people covering their ears.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AdminJar, posted 08-28-2005 12:36 PM AdminJar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 300 (238084)
08-28-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
08-28-2005 5:35 PM


Re: can one of you make this guy stop?
ignore him totally and see what happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 5:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2005 7:02 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 188 of 300 (250328)
10-09-2005 9:08 PM


NosyNed
The thread
GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
http://EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} -->EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
was closed because "it is not a coffeehouse topic" even though it has been around a while (it was a spin-off from an off topic post on another thread).
would it be possible to move it to an appropriate forum instead (perhaps shorten the name to just Gravity Problems)?
say {Is It Science?} or {the Big Bang and Cosmology}?
just curious.

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 300 (255690)
10-30-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Adminnemooseus
10-30-2005 1:52 AM


My only response on this issue.
Adminnemooseus, msg 256 writes:
My impression is that RAZD has largely been acting as a major league jerk since and in regards to Mirabile_Auditu's arrival. Remember, we expect the evolution side to be the rational perspective.
Adminnemooseus, msg 252 writes:
More seriously, much of RAZD's recent output has been attacks on the person of Mirabile_Auditu. Feel free to look at RAZD's most recent messages.
I take that these are what you are talking about:
RAZD {Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism} thread, msg 30, subtitled: "SpiderMBA ... Off Topic: Warning to Admin." writes:
Well hello SpiderMBA aka Buxup200 aka DarwinsProf aka John Jaeger, jactitating jingoist aka aka etc etc ... funny how you cannot hide in any name you choose because you cannot keep from going over the top in your own particular fashion. Time to check for spelling errors next right?
Yes, and I have seen those "reviews" and dismantled them in their entirety for the logical fallacies and the misrepresentations and the misconceptions that you invoke in the name of reason. You know me as RAZD8 and as AbbyLeever on another board. Would you like me to post one of your "reviews" complete with the rebuttal that you have never ever answered with any substance? Maybe the "Booknook" would be the place, so everyone can see the level of rationality and logic you put into the effort ... although the thread "Return to Humor" might be more appropriate.
I have also frequently corrected you on the above noted quote and you still choose to get it wrong: this makes you the intentionally wicked one in the subset, but we knew that.
Note to admin: this is one of the most hate filled posters ever seen on the other board I frequent. You would do well to watch him. I predict he will get himself banned, and fairly soon. His blanket condemnation of others as hateful and vile is one of his trademarks. He also classifies anyone not in his orbit around Neptune as being leftist, lying, lockstepping liberals. I can give you some examples if you like.
Same old stock phrases John, even though you have been using them for over 3 years.
What have you done that's new John? Or is "invisible glass" still it?
Enjoy.
and
RAZD, {the old improbable probability problem} thread, msg 31 writes:
SpiderMBA - or Mirabile_Auditu as you are now calling yourself -
Now that I know who you are, I am not surprised that you have not answsered my rebuttal of your weak post (Message 30), or by the logical fallacies and the ad hominem attacks and the complete lack of substance that were involved in your post.
You are not new to the process, nor to me personally, and you can expect no "kid-glove treatement" from me (as I usually give to newcomers).
Those who are unfamiliar with you will do well to take as a beginning the worst example of a FUNDIE (Fundamentalist Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) they know as a starting point.
Enjoy.
These are, I thought, very clearly posted as warnings, to admin and to others, about this person: they are based on actual experience, rather than beng gratuitous ad hominem attacks on his person.
I also note that the substance of these comments that may appear to be attacks, have been substantiated by "Mirabile_Auditu" aka SpiderMBA himself in his several other posts (whether they are to admins in the post new topic forum or to other posters on other threads). For an example of this look at:
http://EvC Forum: RAZD HYPOCRITICAL, HATEFUL AD HOMINEMS
or
EvC Forum: Tweaking the Big Bang
or
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism
or
EvC Forum: Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism
or
EvC Forum: Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class!
etc.
These posts substantiate what I have said about John, so I ask: is telling the truth about someone an ad hominem attack?
After I was informed that you did not want such warnings I posted:
RAZD {Abiogenesis - Essential Darwinism}thread, msg 42 writes:
have at it then.
If anyone is aware of a reply from John where he actually and civilly debates (ie - responds more than once) the questions raised by others responding to his posts and without attacking them, please point me to it. I am not averse to changing my opinion of John.
As far as this comment goes:
RAZD reacted by dragging in all sorts of ugly past experiences from other forums.
There are many things I know about John Jaeger from my past experience that I have not posted because they are personal information and have nothing to do with the arguments he makes (or fails to make). If I had wanted to attack John personally I would have posted much more about him.
Adminnemooseus {Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)} thread, msg 273 writes:
For persisting in posting in a topic clearly labeled "(MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)", and for ongoing general harassment behaviour.
What I posted was
RAZD {Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)} thread, msg 272 writes:
fyi - he.
his name is John Jaeger.
Because Phat (non-admin mode? posting as a civy?) had said "She/He" -- clearly this was just information.
I find it rather silly to have an open forum board that has a thread where everyone can post but are expected not to do so and then have admins get into a fit whenever someone does. I also find it silly to be so upset about a post that is only a piece of additional information and that is totally neutral about that other poster.
ohnhai, msg 250 (this thread) writes:
and how come admin only threads are not admin only.. I've set up several boards in my time and restricting access by group is really easy... so Why can non Admins even post in these topics?
Exactly.
Here's an easy solution: close the thread.
Admins can still post to a closed thread but no-one else can (they also have to be in admin mode to do it so this would be clearer in usage as well).
I think that RAZD is very knowledgeable and intelligent. I also think he has heavy tendencies to be an arrogant bastard.
Thank you. I will take that into advisement.
On another note, I have not been a big fan of the {post new topic} concept, as I felt it did stifle some of the more spontaneous give and take elements of the debate, forcing members to either (1) post off topic on another thread or (2) wait until a new thread is approved (and then the other person has moved on to other topics or lost interest).
I want to commend Adminnemooseus on instigating this (I believe it was his idea) policy, as I have changed my mind about the net benefit of this policy.
It certainly stops new members from spamming the board with a large number of topics that are generally "understellar" in their quality, and which are each then left undefended by the original author as he proceeds to post other similar pieces.
Thank you.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-30-2005 1:52 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by DorfMan, posted 12-01-2005 9:03 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 258 of 300 (257227)
11-06-2005 2:48 AM


today9823
12 messages so far, not one on topic, all virtually identical: inane spam.
Isn't it time to pull the plug?

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 8:46 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 300 (257259)
11-06-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
11-06-2005 2:48 AM


Re: today9823 - bump for AdminNWR
http://EvC Forum: evolutionary chain
thank you. and congrats on the admin promo. when do you get a gonzonga avatar for it?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2005 2:48 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 300 (257331)
11-06-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Adminnemooseus
10-30-2005 1:52 AM


posting solution?
re http://EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY) -->EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)
Any thoughts on closing that thread so that non-admins don't have to worry about getting burned by posting on it?
Seems that this would be an easy solution to me - admins can still post to it (or reopen it to use it).
Just a thought Director Mooseus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-30-2005 1:52 AM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-06-2005 6:30 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 270 of 300 (257363)
11-06-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by AdminBen
11-06-2005 7:21 PM


Re: Opening new threads
Is there a way to do that without going through PNT and losing the congruity of the discussion?
What about a 'side topic' forum in 'side orders' for branched topics?
The rule could be that it has to come from an established thread where it is off-topic but has generated a discussion of at least two posts in length
Perhaps admins could copy the relevant posts and move the discussion to set it up rather than close down the OT posts? (trying to keep work to a min by combining activity of OT monitoring with PNT oversight)
Thus {biblical geneology vs fossil record} could become a side order topic for crash & christian (and anyone else that wants to get into it).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by AdminBen, posted 11-06-2005 7:21 PM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by AdminBen, posted 11-06-2005 9:01 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024