Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 196 of 302 (277781)
01-10-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by arachnophilia
01-10-2006 2:08 PM


Re: bring back randman
Spidey,
With respect, you have no idea how much time Percy and other mods dedicated to Randman (and Adminrandman) to try and help him.
It would be pointless to allow him back, he is never going to be able to see his shortcomings. He is incapable of having a civil converstation with anyone, he drags every single thread he is involved in off topic.
He should have been banned a long time ago,as for being given admin status, well my opinions on that are well known.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 2:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2006 8:05 PM Brian has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 197 of 302 (277841)
01-10-2006 5:49 PM


I'd like to comment...
I'd like to make a point that could come off as negative and to avoid that want to preface it with a few comments. First, I notice my privileges as a poster have been restored and thank percy for doing that. Secondly, I want to remind everyone, especially on the evo side of the aisle here, that good people can and do disagree, and that despite percy and I locking horns so to speak, nothing I say here is meant to be derogative towards him personally, his character, motives, etc,...but we simply have a disagreement of opinion.
Ironically, imo, I tend to think my actions as a moderator were within the forum guidelines more so than as a member, where I have tended to respond with similar tones and at times even similar tactics that are directed towards me, which I will try to avoid doing from now on, but that is, of course, my view and opinion, and offered not as a point to debate here.
I offered several times to resign as a moderator since it seemed clear the differences in perception of fairness was so great between me and percy and some other key mods such as adminjar and others, that it was not going to work out, but I would try continue if they wanted. Imo, it is essential to have creationist and ID mods, not to combat the appearance of biasness, but to combat a genuine biasness in moderation. I think among the evo mods the sense was the moderation was fine, but they just needed "a little balance" and perhaps not even that but just needed creationists and IDers to help ID and creationist posters behave. I don't think there was a sense of actual misbehaviour or biasness among the evo mods towards non-evos, and so with such a disparity of opinion, it just did not work out.
I do think it would have been better and more appropiate to allow me to resign, as offered, instead of rejecting my offer to resign and subsequently dismissing me in an insulting manner.
On a larger note, I was asked to give examples on the private moderator forum where board violations were tolerated in an unfair manner by evo mods, and I gave the example, one of many that could be given, where an entire thread was promoted with the following comments in the OP.
The problem is this -
For Creationists / IDrs simply asking the questions = scoring points.
They don't care about the answers. They don't understand the answers. Hell, they don't understand the questions.
Think of the debate not as a scientific discussion, but as the audience at Jerry Springer. The Creationist grabs the mic and says "I ain't birthed on account of no monkey" (ie "You're fat ass needs to find yerself a job"). The rest of the audience cheers.
http://EvC Forum: For ToErs Eyes Only -->EvC Forum: For ToErs Eyes Only
I contrasted this example of open bashing and denigration of creationists and IDers with an example where I was banned sometime back for merely appearing to denigrate evolutionists. I harbor no ill feelings over such a temporary ban some time ago, but just used that example since it seemed to contrast so well; evos disparaging creationists being fine, but just the perception of denigration of evolutionist character being a bannable offense.
Imo, I truly thought the moderators would agree, and say, yea, I can see that is blatant one-sided application of the forum guidelines.
I also mentioned that more civil and polite IDers such as Jerry Don Bauer were probably run off by less than even-handed moderation and posted a thread and example where, imo, the evo moderation was uncalled for.
One of the complaints against me was that I was not weighing in against Faith and other creationists, but honestly there has been a lot of moderation of late, and I was perfectly willing to weigh in against any post needing moderation. I have a large family, sole supporter financially, a growing start-up company, and I am sure like everyone, that significant time devoted here cuts into other important areas of life, and in my case, probably has cost me many thousands of dollars since I am paid per the work produced (but my own fault for being so addicted). My point is I cared enough to try to do what I felt was needed to create some balance here.
Imo, there is a need for much more balance, and I still maintain despite the fact almost no evo mods agreed with me, that actions such as promoting the claim the only reason anyone disagrees with evolution is they are ignorant, dishonest imbeciles is insanely outside of that the forum guidelines. More to the point, considering that most evo mods seem to agree with that basic characterization of their opponents, except some disagree with the tone (such as comparing creationists to people on the Jerry Springer show), that there is absolutely no way for the board to remain civil when this sort of mischaracterization is allowed and supported.
It shows a level of blatant disresprect and biased perception, which unfortunately I was not able to convince the board moderators as a group to accept and deal with, and as everyone can see, once again, the perception is it's all basically the unreasonable creationist and IDer that is at fault.
I would respectfully submit that just maybe some evos here should rethink that basic belief, that it is sheer unreasonableness, or dishonesty, or ignorance, etc...that results in some rejecting ToE, and to be a little more open-minded to the possibility that educated, honest, smart, and open-minded people can and so view the facts related to ToE and find them lacking.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-10-2006 05:53 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2006 8:25 PM randman has replied
 Message 201 by Nuggin, posted 01-10-2006 8:37 PM randman has not replied
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 01-10-2006 10:03 PM randman has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 198 of 302 (277883)
01-10-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Admin
01-10-2006 2:47 PM


Re: bring back randman
but what do you mean about playing by different rules? If you mean the Forum Guidelines, then I can't compromise on those. They're kind of fundamental to constructive debate, and I don't see anything in them that is unfair to creationists.
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation
that presupposes that creationism can and always should be supported with evidence (which it's not) and or reasoning abilities (doubtful). i don't mean to be insulting, but it's FAITH, not intellect.
I agree, and that's why we loosened up some months back. But what we've found is that some people, when given too free a hand, just continue pushing the boundaries. It depends on who's here at the time. The board keeps changing enforcement procedures in reaction to the problems caused by who's currently active, and that feels like the right thing to do. In some ways we're hindered by the board's current feature set for moderation, but that will be improving soon.
i had an idea in chat, the other night. i'm going to suggest something similar. but i'd like to introduce it with an anecdote.
when i was in high school, the a common complaint was the dress code. nobody ever thought it was fair. i was on my school's advisory council, and one of the things we came up with was having students draft the dress code themselves. that way it wasn't "administration vs. students" but something the students themselves came up with, and would agree to. the rules they drafted were nearly identical to the ones already in place.
so i suggest we let the creationists draft the rules. with oversight, of course -- any rule would have to be approved by both camps. that way, there can never be a complaint that the rules are biased against creationists, and never even any such sentiment.
what do you think?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Admin, posted 01-10-2006 2:47 PM Admin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 199 of 302 (277886)
01-10-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Brian
01-10-2006 2:51 PM


Re: bring back randman
With respect, you have no idea how much time Percy and other mods dedicated to Randman (and Adminrandman) to try and help him.
i've debated randman before, so i have some idea. he can be a pain in the ass, i agree. he likes to scream about bias and conspiracy, i know.
It would be pointless to allow him back, he is never going to be able to see his shortcomings
then the debate is pointless as well. this is not an isolated phenominon. even though randman is not a typical creationist, this sort of thing is pretty common, isn't it?
i'm trying to explain the origin of this kind of problem. i don't think many on the evo side here really understand how dangerous and insulting standards of evidence and rigorous questioning can be to faith. i have some idea -- i've reached the point my journey where i no longer want to question for fear's sake.
they are not here to be questioned -- attacked -- by us. they are here to convince us of the beautiful truth they know in their hearts. our rationality is rudeness to them. and so they act rudely to us.
He is incapable of having a civil converstation with anyone, he drags every single thread he is involved in off topic.
and we should punish those things, that's fine. i just don't think he should be banned because we can't get him to agree.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Brian, posted 01-10-2006 2:51 PM Brian has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 302 (277892)
01-10-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
01-10-2006 5:49 PM


Welcome Back Randman.
Hi Randman. I welcome you back and thank Percy for reconsidering.
Having been here for several years, I have observed how things are going with moderation. I do think Percy sincerely wants more fairness and balance.
I read up on the exchange between you and Percy in the admin forum. I think, regardless of how you think you were treated as moderator, perhaps you said too much rather than making your point and dropping it. I've seen some recent change for the better for us and we don't want to hinder that. We must remember that this board is primarily an evolutionist board with the large majority who are evolutionists.
As Percy works to improve balance here, he has his likeminded constituents, our counterparts in debate to deal with. We must understand that as we are being now priviledged to share in admin moderation, we will need to go easy so as to assure the majority that we're going to work as a team with the majority, so they won't perceive us as coming in and telling them how to run things. We're making progress, so my advice is for us to keep a good attitude towards the majority, yet holding firm to our positions without compromise.
Pray a lot and work at keeping the peace. Tensions have been too high in some threads. We need to keep focusing on topic in the threads and refrain from answering in kind when reviled. Solomon said, "a soft answer turns away wrath" and I believe the apostle Paul said, "love is not easily provoked." Bob Jones University founder said many years ago to his students, "Don't let your feelings stick out and they won't get bumped."
Having said the above, we needn't be door mats, so to speak. Anger is not an evil thing, but we Biblicalists need to remember another thing Paul said to the Ephesians. "Be angry and sin not." That's not always so easy. I am trying to work on this.
So, good bud, we need you. Keep plugging away for truth and when tensions get tight, slow down. Take care of your family and business first. My prayers are with you and yours. God bless!

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 5:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 2:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 201 of 302 (277898)
01-10-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
01-10-2006 5:49 PM


Re: I'd like to comment...
Welcome back, Randman
I was worried when I saw that you were banned. There has to be at least someone to argue with, otherwise the board is boring.
On Jerry Springer:
The quote is mine It's from a thread specifically discussing the method by which the debate is addressed. I was not refering to the Creationists as members of the Jerry Springer audience. I was refering to the American Public as the audience. An analogy I stand by. (After all, they are his audience)
Too often public debate on this subject (or any subject) is reduced to three word slogans that fit on protest signs.
If we are to have a scientific debate, both sides need to address science - not sound bites.
Additionally, I'd like to draw a distinction between generalizing the kind of debate/tactics being used by a side and an attack on a particular person from that side. (though, I have seen you be admonished for refering to tactics as I did here).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 5:49 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Wounded King, posted 01-11-2006 6:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 302 (277914)
01-10-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
01-10-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Faith quoting a Bible verse
You have a piercing, fascinating intellect ...
What a generous compliment, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2006 11:25 AM crashfrog has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 203 of 302 (277915)
01-10-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by randman
01-10-2006 5:49 PM


Re: I'd like to comment...
Welcome back, Randman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 5:49 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 204 of 302 (277965)
01-11-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Buzsaw
01-10-2006 8:25 PM


Re: Welcome Back Randman.
Buzz, thank you for your prayers and God speed as a moderator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2006 8:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 205 of 302 (278278)
01-11-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Nuggin
01-10-2006 8:37 PM


Re: I'd like to comment...
science - not sound bites.
Great, now where's my placard!!
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Nuggin, posted 01-10-2006 8:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 206 of 302 (278347)
01-12-2006 12:16 AM


off topic
off-topic-banner
i really like the new off-topic banner. it's cute and i think will prove very effective. it could use a funny picture though.
(edit by AdminNWR - add off-topic banner )
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-12-2006 12:16 AM
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-11-2006 11:37 PM

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 207 of 302 (278643)
01-13-2006 10:45 AM


brennakimi suspended, Golfer not?
Let's see.
Golfer can slime brennakimi (emphasis added)...
Your of the world so you see a loving relationship as a slave to your mate. You don't see the bigger picture that he too is serving you, its a two way street you being the weaker vessel. You wouldn't want to deprive your man of sex (I take that back you probably use to manipulate the man)
...but brenna can't respond with a straightforward Anglo-Saxon epithet that doesn't even get censored on the radio:
thanks for the vote of confidence asshole.
At least brenna had evidence for her charge (in fact, she is absolutely right)--Golfer had none, only a nastily insinuating insult of the most personal sort.
Yeah, yeah...two wrongs don't make a right. But ignoring a greater wrong while punishing a lesser one doesn't make a right, either.
Bad call.

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------
What I refuse to accept is your insistence that your beliefs about your beliefs constitute evidence in support of your beliefs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2006 4:08 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 210 by FliesOnly, posted 01-13-2006 5:14 PM Omnivorous has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 208 of 302 (278728)
01-13-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Omnivorous
01-13-2006 10:45 AM


Re: brennakimi suspended, Golfer not?
agreed. that whole bit she was responding to was very condescending christian-ese, even aside from actual bit that was over the line.
at least brenna is straightforward and to the point.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-13-2006 04:08 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Omnivorous, posted 01-13-2006 10:45 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-13-2006 4:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 209 of 302 (278740)
01-13-2006 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by arachnophilia
01-13-2006 4:08 PM


Golfer hot topic in Private Admin Forum right now
Despite the public evidence to the contrary, the Golfer behaviour is not being ignored by the various admins.
Please stand by for announcements of further developments.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2006 4:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by arachnophilia, posted 01-13-2006 5:17 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 210 of 302 (278750)
01-13-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Omnivorous
01-13-2006 10:45 AM


Re: brennakimi suspended, Golfer not?
When I first read the response from Brennakimi, I actually thought that she had written the "Suspended" comment herself...as a joke. I was surprised to see that it was indeed real. Personally, while I do not think a suspension was warranted, even if she had known she would get suspended for her comment, I would like to think that she would have done it anyway...just to say what she said.
Good one Brenna! Way to stick it to him...(so to speak)
On a related note, is anyone actually taking The Golfer seriously? Do any of you think he really believes the stuff he writes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Omnivorous, posted 01-13-2006 10:45 AM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by roxrkool, posted 01-13-2006 9:02 PM FliesOnly 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