General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

Robinrohan has a proposal up. You could promote it.

Had a quick scan of your last 20 posts DHR. Your average musing per post on this basis is 1.85 lines of text. It is not surprising thus that you provide no evidence to back up this assertion.You may not agree with Faith but at least she puts some effort into making her case.Like, it's the easiest thing to sit on the fence and throw rocks...Just not all that admirable...

What does "bump" mean?

"bump" simply brings the thread back up to the top of the list. It's a way of keeping the thread in view or reminding someone that it is there.

It's not the length of the text, but the content of the text. Did you read them to see if they fit into the context of the discussion?I don't see any sylistic requirements in the EvC forum guideline.I am not here for your admiration or any other form of approval.If you had felt that I had made an assertion you should have asked me to provide evidence,or you could have picked out one of those comments and replied, instead you attack my posting history.*not my quote

Hi AdminNosy,I'm not taking issue with your closing birds, bats, pterosaurs -- and fused backbones.I thought the question fit there because I wasn't intending to get into the origins of anything...just asking for information on two types of backbones. However, I can certainly see how it would NOT qualify as a coffee-house topic.I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't pulling the "coffee-house dodge." I've never had a problem with the PNT process.I was trying to get some facts together for a possible PNT, though (and was having trouble getting the info through Google). The one link posted by FliesOnly has made me question the basic premise of my original idea, anyway.--Jason

Its when you have big speakers in your trunk and you turn them up waaaaay loud!

The threadGRAVITY 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.

Explain how you define favoritism? Is it based on bias? Prejudice?
Do we not all judge based on evidence? Moderate means to avoid extremes,whenever possible. Some of our posters are extreme to one degree or another. A good moderator does not censor one point of view to the exclusion of other,opposing points of view. We cannot allow science to be our only basis for reality. To do so would involve bias.We simply must allow Faith to express her faith. Her origin of reality is different from your origin of reality. Thats what makes a debate. I am biased. I know it. I admit it. And yet, I would not want to give anyone special consideration over you, D.H.R.This message has been edited by Phat, 10-10-2005 08:08 AM

no, we don't. and that's essentially what makes this debate so hard. if the moderators don't make special allowances for people who do not judge based on evidence, and warn/ban for unsupported assertions, then we essentially don't have a debate.the scientific community doesn't have a debate -- they all know where the evidence stands. if we have the same standards here, we won't have very many religious posters.

---

אָרַח

This probably doesn't belong here... but I'm not sure where to go.There's a time and place for logical thinking and evidence. And there's a time and place for working outside of that. The debate is not about Truth^TM but a lot less than that, and a lot more than that.Your post sounds to me like you think creation vs. evolution is a debate only about scientific theory and the history of life. I don't think so. Because of that, it IS possible to have both scientists and non-scientists here, just as it is possible to have both believers and non-believers. The purpose, in my eyes, is to find the boundaries of what kind of thinking and what kind of knowledge is applicable where and when, and to find ways to deal with each other. Like I said, I think this takes a really narrow view of what's going on here. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think admins have to compromise as much as you think.I think the biggest compromises made by admins are not because of scientific vs. faith debates, but because people get edgy during debate. To deal with this, I think we compromise. On the whole, I don't see that we allow people to post non-science in places where science is the language.The reason I respond, arach, is because I think this is a really key perspective in facing the debate. Key both for what to expect out of admins, but also key in facing where a possible resolution lies. I just didn't get that sense from your post, and I thought it was appropriate to bring up.I hope it makes sense how this fits into how admins work, what compromises are made, and how (at least one) admin(s) strive for resolution to the debate.

Referees often take stick during (and after) a game, but try running a competition without them. In the market-place of ideas presented here, someone has to blow the whistle.I salute the admins for their unpaid perseverence with a bunch of ego-trippers (me, included). If I get warned or suspended, so be it. I accept that in the spirit of EVC. If you feel you are facing continuing bias from an admin/admins, there`s at least two alternatives. Disappear slowly into the sunset, or step up to the base, offer your services as an admin, and face the heat.

Adding another 2 cents to the pot...Becoming stricter about the formulation of arguments in the science forums has reduced participation there rather than raised the tenor of debate. You can't get blood from a stone, and apparently you can't get scientific discussion from Creationists. The emergence of ID as the most prominent Creationist argument has caused them to adopt an even more blasé attitude toward scientific fundamentals.It is very difficult for me to see any point in a scientific debate where one side is unable to keep up even a pretense of being scientific, but the alternative appears to be very little or no debate at all.My stomach churns at the thought of allowing reentry of Creationists like John Paul and John Davison, or of complete loons like WillowTree, or of allowing anyone to simply ignore all central issues as is the style of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base. But holding Creationists to some minimal standards of scientific debate seems equivalent to greatly reduced dialog with them.My thoughts on this conundrum swing like a pendulum. At present I seem to have swung to the opinion that we should, at least at present, reduce the burden on Creationists by not requiring them to discuss scientifically, even in the science forums. Within the next year or so I hope to release a version of the board with features that make addressing these difficult issues simpler and more natural with less demand upon moderator time.I haven't had a chance to discuss these recent thoughts with the other moderators yet, so keep in mind this is only an opinion at this point.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I must say that a comment like this indicates that you are assuming what you are arguing about. Are we supposed to have certain "givens" about what it means to be "scientific"?ABE: I think one would need to make a distinction between scientific results and scientific method.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-11-2005 08:55 AM

It is a common Creationist position that the definition of science is ambiguous or lacks a consensus. There are a number of threads that discuss this issue in [forum=-11], but here's the short answer to your question: Actual discussion about the nature of science and of scientific inquiry should take place in [forum=-11].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director