Change in Moderation?

Hi Admin,
Thanks for your response. I agree with you on most points but there are some special cases. With salty, I agree with you that his posts will probably be a waste of time. But that could not be known from the beginning..it only became apparent with time. The same goes for Zephan/ten-sai, sonnikke or Jet who are unwilling (and probably unable) to substantiate their assertions and usually refuse to even state their positions.Borger is a bit different. Though I would not wish to put anyone through the torture of going back through the months of back and forth posts between myself and Peter (with a lot of help from Quetzal) we finally did manage to get him to go from claiming he had a "big theory" to actually stating it. The same with W. nobilis as his "evidence against evolution". Though both were thoroughly jumped on, the discussions were really interesting and not particularly hostile and a lot of people beyond myself, Peter or Quetzal ultimately participated. I see a similar pattern appearing with your attempts to get Peter to define GUToB and many of his other terms. It takes a lot of coaxing but he usually comes around. Tranquility Base is another similar case though he was never to my recollection hostile or belligerent towards anyone whereas Peter (like myself on occassion ) can be. Peter was out of line today so I don't question that you suspended him I only question the harshness of the supension given that some have posted much worse comments and recieved lesser punishment. It is your board to run the way you see fit and I am not here trying to pass judgement on your moderating. If I didnt like it, I would not be here. I just think that regardless of how annoying Peter is, he has been a major catalyst for discussion in the Evolution forum which is why I piped in...if you had suspended Zephan forever I would not have cared In any case, I do see merit in the idea of separating the forum out a bit like you suggest. I think the idea of the Free for All containing threads where people can post whatever they want would be fine and A LOT of threads could be moved there from the other forums frankly. The moderated forums could then be a place to more seriously discuss the issues. If someone posted nonsense/insults/etc. they would then get suspended I assume but still retain the ability to post in the Free for All forums? That might encourage people to think before posting and get out of the minor league so that they could stay where the threads are on topic and interesting as opposed to being confined to the flame war room. It might work...I guess the other participants have some opinions?

Hi Admin,
Sorry I did not get to this sooner but I was offline all weekend due to the Starkbierfest in Munich I think what you suggest here is a bad idea IMHO. I don't think a hypothesis should have to have more than one proponent to be discussed. I think the proponent must be willing to supply data they have generated themselves, data from other groups (even interpreted novelly), or a theoretical model. They then would have to support it, defend it, and try to account for information that perhaps falsifies it. It is not that PB has his GUToB that is the problem per se, it is his unwillingess to define it and a complete unwillingness to support his statements i.e. I have challenged him dozens of times to demonstrate an example of non random mutation and even suggested experiments he could finish off in a couple of weeks if need be. He either ignores me or claims he has "defeated evolution" and then continues to make the same claims or says nobody has ever addressed those claims. This is the problem with salty as well. As much of a pain in the posterior Fred Williams could be, he occassionally attempted to bring things to the table to support himself even if they were comically wrong.You are probably correct that myself, SLPx, Quetzal, Mark24 and the other evolutionists on the board do not have major disagreements about evolutoinary theory so a board dedicated to us debating esoteric points about molecular clocks etc. would not serve he purpose of this board. Hence, some of us are asking for leniency towards some of the creationists because as Quetzal indicated, they are the catalysts for broader and more interesting discussions. It is usually clear after a while when a thread is falling apart...therefore, I still am in favor of the idea of transforming the Free for All into a dumping ground, as PaulK so aptly described it, and have the rest of the forums moderated under a different more stringent set of criteria.This of course does not exclude the possibility (and a good idea at that) of having a creationist moderator such as TrueCreation or TB if they are willing to shoulder that responsibility.cheers,
M

Hi Admin,
I think you are slightly misinterpreting what I was trying to get at.Think of it this way, Stanley Prusiner won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his infectious prion work. There was a time where he was one of the only proponents of his protein only thoery of disease transmission. So presenting a theory as a lone proponent is not inherently bad as Prusiner was ultimately recognized as having been correct. However, in contrast to Borger, salty, etc. he both rigorously defined his hypothesis and then backed it up with an immense amount of experimental evidence. There is still a lot not known and maybe he is wrong on some minor and even major facets of prion disease. But nobody can accuse him of not being able to back up his assertions or at least of attempting to do so...having heard him lecture twice..it must have been a heck of a rough ride to convince people.That is what I have (very unsuccessfully) been trying to impress upon salty recently. Why is debating Tranquility Base on "kinds" or genomics worthwhile and debating with salty not? Because even though I think both of them are completely wrong, TB often would cite research that he felt supported his claims and argued with me over research articles or arguments that I presented...and thus the debate could progress. TB was a lone proponent of his view but a useful one...though he also had some annoying tendencies Ok, I agree that Borger is a crackpot and salty as well. I am not defending them as great thinkers with compelling arguments. Only as catalysts for discussion (for example: As a result of Borger's non-random mutation nonsense, I am getting some interesting questions from judge today). Borger with a lot of work would sometimes progress to another level i.e. at least stating his "theory" . It has been months since he has gone any further so I can see how you would consider him a waste of time. I am quickly reaching that point with salty.I think rather than the number of proponents one has for a hypothesis, the criteria should be 1) can the person formulate their view understandably 2) can they support it with experimental evidence, observation, theoretical models 3) and will they willingly debate counter evidence presented. Failure to abide by these criteria would mean their threads get booted to the Free for All.I think this would isolate the crackpots and encourage people to up the quality of their arguments...and the moderated areas would probably be more to your liking.On another note, do you really think their are more crackpots now than in the recent past?...I mean there were a few months last year with Wordswordsman, Borger, Fred Williams, and Ten-sai all posting at the same time. Things seem peaceful now..though I have to admit I have restricted myself to the Evolution forum.cheers,
M

Hi Moose,
Don't think it would work if regulation was at the level of the individual. It would only work with threads. To some degree this has been happening already. For example, Symansu posted his cut variation thread and re-hashed old arguments. Admin closed the thread immediately and put it in the Free for All. Similarly, if someone starts a thread that immediately degenerates it gets booted to Free for All. Or a legitimate thread that strays completely off topic. The new topic could be put in the Free for All and the original topic re-established anew. If an individual starts acting up in the non-Free for All, rather than suspending their posting privilege, they get a 24, 48, 72 etc. suspension from the forums except for the Free for All. I don't know if any of this is reasonable or even possible. I am just spouting out some ideas. I just think banning and global suspensions feeds into some peoples idea of a victory i.e. "they could not accept my brilliance and these biased people banned me."What I (and others) propose is to turn the Free for All into a place where misbehavior in the other forums leads to something akin to standing in a corner with a dunce cap on . Since it could happen to anyone on either side of the debate it would be a fair system and there would be a motivation to stay out of the Free for All and participate in the other forums since that would be where the really interesting discussions would reside.

Cool...I am "some guy in Germany" ...can I call that my SGiG #3 theory?I have to agree with wj completely regarding banning. Salty is trying desperately to get banned so that he can claim he is vindicated (and odd way of looking of things admittedly). He is not the only one who has used this tactic and I don't think that is the best way to go.

Hi Moose,
Had to chuckle when I read the half way house description...sort of like AA...hi, I am Mammuthus and I have not ranted at EvC in 4 posts..short applause Any way it turns out, I think that if the threads in the Evolution forums could be more tightly controlled for content, the Free for All an unmoderated mess, and Unique Perspective somewhere in the middle, banning could be completely avoided. But I still think it should have some sort of carrot and stick approach where there is a motivation for participating in the regular forums and being confined for 24 hours or longer to the Free for All is seen as a punishment. I think it would sort itself out naturally. Those wishing to really debate won't get into constant flame wars and will bring interesting debates to the table. Those who just want to pull a salty will never get out of the "bad student" corner of the Free for All and may frankly not want to which would also be ok..they would isolate themselves. Punishment for the rest of us would be to be stuck with them which in turn would keep us from overreacting in the regular forums...not that I ever do that

Ok, Borger and I violated most of the rules in the last posts in our arguments over non-random mutation, GUToB, etc. which admittedly got way overheated. Fine, I am not particularly thrilled with my parting shots at Peter either and would not recommend anybody use our debate as a template for interacting with someone of an opposite view point. My suspension and Peter's are not the issue that disturbs me here. It is a lack of consistency in applying moderation.I see most board participants get a warning that they are crossing the line prior to suspension (or in Borger's case, permanent suspension). We both got chucked out without any warning. Even the option to re-edit or delete completely the most egregious posts was removed this way. On top of that, I see that subsequently, salty has violated rules 1 throuh 3 in EVERY post since Peter and I were suspended without a warning..nothing. On the opposite side, other's have also been violating rule 3 (a common occurrence on both sides normally
At some level this is unavoidable and does not mean the entire thread will become a flame war...but most of us I would tink on either side of the various debates do not take to kindly to being called an idiot because of their viewpoint. So not every post will be cool and detached.I sympathize with Admin that a change is desired as the rampant closing of threads, the increased suspensions, and bannings is hardly optimal. At present the changes to the forum remain undecided. I also don't get any sense of a timeframe for a change. But in the interim, I don't see a reason to continue posting. I plan on suspending my participation indefinitely. If a standard set of moderating guidelines are developed or a new concept in running the forums emerges from this suggestion thread that seems to work well, I'll re-evaluate. I really have enjoyed it here immensely and there are some really sharp people posting solid science and philosophy of science. But if we can't say what we think, or some of us can and other's cannot, or worse, some of the time we can say anything and then suddenly it is restricted, then the advantage of a free and open debate is lost.So I won't post, I will lurk and see for a while and if something changes for the better I will participate again. If not,so be it. In either case, I wish everyone on the EvC boards the best.Cheers,
Mammuthus

deleted by M, rather lurk until some of this gets straightened out.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-19-2003]

Are there any changes in moderation or rules of engagement (for lack of a better term) forthcoming from Admin(s)?Over the last few weeks I have seen SLPx threatened with suspension and repeately chastised, Buddika banned, sagg leaving feeling insulted and yet notably several of the most useless members of the forum have been given absolute free reign. Several of the threads in Evolution are basically being dictated by salty who is allowed to carry on with the same behavior unmodified while everyone else must sit back and take it. It is like reading from Terry Trainor's site! There are other examples such as booboocruise, but I focus on salty as an example of the gross imbalance developing here since I mostly read the Evolution threads. Admittedly, salty got a one day suspension but why is his behavior any better than Buddika's or Peter Borger's for that matter both of whom are permanently suspended?I figured I should continue to lurk or just leave completely which is why I have deleted my last posts. But at this point I am really curious if the way things are now, particularly in the Evolution forum, are considered by the moderators to be the preferred way things should go for the future or if there are any changes in the works?Cheers,
M

Hi Moose,
I fired off an email to you at mnmoose@lakenet.com
Did you get it?...I have been having trouble with my email of late so don't know if it got through.cheers
M

Hi crashfrog,
I don't disagree with being harder on evolutionists. However, I am more referring to the recent spate of suspensions and bannings that have occurred. We have lost a bunch of people recently and I fail to see a distinction between say Peter Borger who was banned permanently from salty who has been given one 24 hours suspension (and then he resumed with no modification of his behavior). In many cases I find salty worse since he never actually presents anything except what SLPx has frequently pointed out, unsupported assertions, insult, and hero worship. Booboocruise is also fairly destructive at some level since he posts similar topics all over the place and then only pops up in one or two placesf i.e. he is spamming the site. Contrast this to PhospholipidGen...I totally disagree with what this guy is saying. But he has stayed on topic and stuck to the topic he started. The quality of the posts in that thread are better overall.Anyway, let's see what happens.cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-25-2003]

I am actually not pushing for salty to be banned at all. I don't want anyone banned. Temp suspensions, critical moderating, etc. fine. I take issue with banning and that it has typically not been obvious (to me at least) why some are banned for relatively mild infractions and others are allowed to persist while being consistently useless i.e. salty. Look at the run around he is giving Percipient/Admin in even simply stating his own view on the difference between Darwinism and evolution!I think PLG is useful since as you can see from his thread, not all of us are agreeing on a definition of mutation. So something productive comes out of debating with him..cheers,
M

Ah Quetzal my friend...beware, you are also on Moose's shortlist of potential moderators

I for one appreciate the clarification Admin.I disagree somewhat on SLPx as I think he has posted some informative and valuable posts. And I also fully understand his frustration with specific members of this forum (who I might note, he has engaged on other boards). I will also put it this way, it is hard enough to get scientists to interact with the public and even worse when it comes to an unwilling public like creationists. That SLPx has been such a long term participant in this activity is admirable and I give him a lot of credit for it. I wish we could get more scientists interested in participation.Your assesment of salty is probably correct. However, the guy brings absolutely nothing to the debate. In fact, Mister Pamboli pointed out his errors of both interpretation and quotation of his hero's that he has been misquoting ad naseum... to which salty responded that he did not agree with everything Broom et al said...and then proceeded as if nobody had ever questioned him or addressed this. Borger was redundant and by the end interaction with him became useless...and yes, I did get "dragged down" into a flame war which I am not pleased with. However, there were some interesting and highly active debates with Borger last year. Salty's do not go anywhere because he is the sole advocate of a bone headed unsupportable idea which he himself refuses to debate but consistently posts that "Darwinism has failed" whatever the heck he even means by that....some normally very cool headed members here have certainly shown their frustrations with him since he was given an extraordinary amount of leeway for absolutely no contribution (I read most of his manifesto even and feel that I could not have destroyed more brain cells if I had consumed all of the Starkbier in Bavaria). I guess my take on Salty is by all means let the guy hang around. Buddika to....but if they cannot abide by the guidelines, boot their threads to the free for all and get them out of the more constructive debates...it just wastes everybodys time and energy otherwise.As an example of constructive I will point out again the mutation thread started by Phospholipidgen is one of the most entertaining I have seen in a long time since none of us can agree on a definition of mutation (darn it Quetzal..we were close until you kaputted it today )cheers,
A yet again participating Mammuthus

Hi Moose,
Well, you can't say I have not tried. I have spent two days trying to nicely goad salty back onto the thread topic. As soon as Scott posts salty goes ballistic. He actually first got angry just because Scott posted, not because Scott insulted him.I will try again to draw salty back into the conversation. I would not bet on my success.In any case, the thread seems pretty healthy for now as a lot of discussion about the science is ongoing with the distractions not derailing the entire topic.cheers,
M