|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution | |||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
There is a network saying, that goes something like this:
Do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity. I think AdminJar is simply following that principle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
randman writes:
The topic was the accuracy of published research reports. As best I can tell, the study was mainly based on research using statistical hypothesis testing, such as is common in the social sciences and pharmacology. As such, everything in my post was on-topic, but admittedly embarassing for evos, and so Nosey bans me ostensibly for being off-topic. You seemed to be using it as an excuse to attack evolutionists. It sure seemed off topic to me. However, I apologize for responding to that post. I hadn't noticed that you would be unable to reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I probably shouldn't be posting here, so I'll keep this short (and I won't debate it further).
wj writes:
Randman's questions have been answered many times. Yet he kept bringing them up, and ignoring the answers already given. Often he brought them up in threads where they were off-topic.
Randman raises questions of evolutionists which they are unable to answer truthfully and then they call on moderators to lock randman out so that the dishonesty and propoganda of evolution can be protected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I thought there was over-reaction on both sides.
The moderation of this site is, of course, biased. It has to be. It is biased against the evolutionists. The moderators give a lot of latitude to creationists, but far less to evolutionists. Nevertheless creationists are often being suspended, while suspensions for evolutionists are rare. This is because evolutionists are mainly giving evidence-based posts, while creationists mostly are not. Because of this difference in suspension rates, there is an unavoidable appearance of bias against creationists. It is to counter this appearance that the moderators must be quick to react when they see a problem in posts by those on the evolutionist side. On the issue of moderator participation in a thread, I don't agree with Modulous here. His proposed restriction is not practical. A moderator who is not participating in a thread is less likely to notice problems and thus will be a poorer moderator. You can see this on the faith-based side of the house, where the moderation is often poor. Threads wander badly off-topic, and moderators are slow to notice the problem -- presumably because the most active moderators are more interested in the science side. Sure, moderating and participating in the same thread can cause problems. But, as we saw in the crashfrog case, these problem seem to be corrected. It appears that the moderators are watching each other and attempting to correct mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?
I agree with you. This sort of thread makes for good reading on how literalists think. It seems reasonable to ask Faith some difficult questions. But it is surely foolish to try to persuade her that literalism is wrong. She clearly isn't going to be persuaded. But it is fascinating to watch how she deals with the questions. I guess I am treating it as a case study in fundy thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I agree with Faith on this. In my opinion, the thread should not have been moved.
Perhaps the thread had run its course and could have simply been locked. Or perhaps it should have been left open a little longer if Faith wished to continue responding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It would be nice if this thread could stay on topic, that is, discussion of moderation. Can we skip the bickering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
A comment from an observer (me) of Some mutations sound too good to be true. On my reading, Faith was mainly seeking clarification. When she brought up Noah's flood, I took her as asking what evolution would expect from the bottleneck that would exist, if the flood story were correct. I did not take her as using that to challenge the science. I took this as within the intended scope of the thread.
This is probably the wrong place, but I would like to compliment the several participants in that thread. Overall it has been, and continues to be, an excellent discussion. And it seems to me that Faith has learned quite a bit about the role of mutations. For that matter, I have learned a thing or two myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
At least part of the problem in simple's discussions, has been that his question appears to have been misunderstood. I have commented (briefly) on that in Message 99.
Yes, simple seems to be annoying in his persistence with his questioning. But at least part of that persistence is because his real question was not being addressed in the responses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The way she was run off, by constant hounding, was a travesty.
I'm unhappy to see Faith leave, too. But I really don't think she was "run off".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Take a look at that "ambiguity" thread.
I have been following it, and there was some unnecessary bickering about it being in a science forum. However, it is my impression that the Mary thread had more to do with her leaving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The announcement that RAZD is suspended (Message 273) did not list the length.
RAZD's posts contribute a lot to this site, so I hope it will be a short suspension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The point was the comparason between evolutionary lines and geneologies.
The problem was that it became sidetracked into an off-topic argument as to whether the biblical geneologies are true or false. Or at least that is what I took AdminNosy's concern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
In short I am going to formally request that we create a new forum called Randman's Haeckel Blog and ...
Wouldn't you also need
What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024