Faith's Participation in EvC

i promise you that by and large most of the participants in the theology threads ain't so erudite either. coincidently, they're still creationists. (well, that's my elitist post for the day)

---

Many different problematic members get discussed in the "Private Administration Forum". This includes Faith, who is in the odd situation of also having administrator status and access to the "PAF".It, at least to me, seems that Faith is largely single-handedly holding down the creationist side all over the place. Doing such is a mighty heavy load, and Faith has done a pretty remarkable job of pulling it off.My impression (and also probably the general impression of the other admins), is that Faith posts a lot of messages in science topics without having much science in her messages (not a good thing). The question is, is this causing other creationists, who might actually have some science input, to not participate in those topics? Or, as Percy/Admin puts it, is the volume of bad debate driving away the good debate?In my very limited input in the "PAF", I suggested that perhaps Faith should be restricted out of the science forums. Perhaps a better solution would be for Faith to voluntarily cut way back in those forums. Perhaps she now currently is doing such.Minnemooseus has a long idle "Great Debate" geology topic going with Faith. One of the reasons I have let that topic fall idle, is that Faith is spread so thin elsewhere, including in subjects much like that of the "Great Debate".Personally, I am rather surprised that the creation/evolution debate works as well as it does, it being an apple/oranges sort of thing. As such, debating the mechanisms of the debate may be as or more interesting that the debate itself. Thus topics such as this one.As most always, "or something like that".Adminnemooseus

i believe there may be a faulty assumption here.

---

If the creationists want to make accusations about science then they have stepped outside the church. They want to play the game then they have to abide by the rules.If they don't like being treated soooo unfairly then they should mind their own business and stay out of schools.

"Fairness" is not about giving each side an equal chance to "win".The side with the best case should win in a fair debate. To say that creationists should be given special privileges because their case is hopelessly weak is just patronising. "Yes, yes, you're an irrational religious fanatic but just so we can have a real fight we'll pretend to accept some of your false dogmas. But really we all know you're wrong". I don't think that that is what creationists want. It's not what I want either - it seems completely pointless to me.The interesting thing about Faith is that she chooses NOT to debate on the issues that are supposedly key to her beliefs. She does not discuss theology, she does not make a case that God meant Genesis to be intneded as a literally true account. Yes these are the things that are the foundations of her case - things that could and should be discussed outside the science forums. If creationism really had a case it would be found there - and creationists SHOULD be at least as competent to discuss that case as most of us are to discuss the scientific evidence.

It's highly innappropriate for the administration team to discuss individual members and their status on the board and how they affect the board? What are we supposed to do all day then, just filter out the spammers? Lets face it, if we strictly enforce the forum guidelines with temporary or longer term suspensions there would probably be no more than half the people there are currently posting, and I suspect that the creation/ID side would be the worst hit.If we need to occupy a point somewhere between zero tolerance and complete anarchy we need some discussion to decide what point along that spectrum is most equitable to the membership.If you think there is a simple solution to this issue that we have all missed on the many iterations in one form or another of this discussion then what is it? In the absence of such a solution we obviously need to revisit these issues from time to time to tune and adjust our policies.TTFN,AW

I'd like to second this post of Parasomnium's.Faith is a smart, eloquent opponent. You'll never get an easy ride when you debate with her and that's just fine by me. Arguing with Faith has really made me think carefully about what I believe, and I'd like to thank her for fitting me into her busy posting schedule .Even in the science forums her contribution is positive. Her persistent questioning of assumptions has brought out some excellent explanatory posts from her opponents. I've learnt a lot from following these threads. I can understand that it may seem frustrating that she won't accept the scientific evidence sometimes, and usually won't provide her own, but I think accepting this frustration is a small price to pay in the long term.For Percy and Ned I'd just like to provide this quote from Mill's On Liberty

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

The fundamental question is what to do about a very articulate and very high-volume participant who has a great deal of difficulty following the forum guidelines, specifically the rules concerning staying on topic and moving discussion forward.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So, if it isn't a privilege, then why doesn't everyone start off as a Mod? People volunteer for a punishment?Why is Jar being punished,or Ned, or Schraff, or Omni, or WK etc? Do you mean they make some people mods for this reason? But, it hasn't made one iota of a difference to Faith's behaviour. She is still disruptive, uncivil, and desctructive. I think it was fairly obvious that she is to unstable to change into what was hoped for. That only works with a very small percentage of the population. if it is the best way then why isn't Ray a mod?Anyway, that isn't how I see a mod's role. A mod should be fairly knowledgable about the forum that they moderate, they should be able to guide the discussion, and hlep out people with suggestions about how to improve OP's.Do you think when Percy is recruiting a md he asks them to take the job because their behaviour is unacceptable or does he ask them to take the job because of their level-headedness and subject knowledge? Well, they are all volunteers, no one forced them to take the job. Apart from one Mod that is, and I'mnot going there again.Brian.

Doesn't really tie in with: Good idea, the ratio of admins to poster is ridiculous, especially when, by my reckoning, there's 8 admins who have either stopped posting here altogether (including as a normal member), or post about once every two months.Brian.

Why not apply the scientific approach to the problem instead of allowing people's emotions to enter into it.You have a problem, and you are looking for a solution.Your vision is to make EvC a board that contains high quality debate between evolutionists and creationists.To reach your goal you need participants that can provide well reasoned and knowlegable posts.You have a poster who, in your opinion, "has a great deal of difficulty following the forum guidelines, specifically the rules concerning staying on topic and moving discussion forward."Solution, remove the poster "who has a great deal of difficulty following the forum guidelines, specifically the rules concerning staying on topic and moving discussion forward."The solution is simple, it may not be what everyone wants, but you know that you have to do something, you do know she is never going to be the type of poster that you wish her to be.If you want to up the quality of debate at EvC, then perhaps people should earn the right to post here, maybe they should submit an e-mail to you outlining their qualifications and give an example of a piece of writing about a particular subject. You and the rest of the mods can decide if an applicant has the potential to be a positive contributer to EvC.Brian.

First of all, let me do some creeping and tell you how much I enjoy your debate forum . This is the only site I've ever participated in and I think it's partly because the site itself is so well-designed (easy to find your way around; easy to follow debate threads, etc.), and partly because the quality of debate is so high. So, thanks for providing the forum - I hope you'll keep it going.Secondly, I don't think those of us defending Faith would argue with any moderator slapping Faith's wrist when she steps out of line. What concerns us is that she is about as eloquent and reasonable a creationist as we're likely to find. If you treat her right she's willing to go a long way in teasing out the implications of creationist ideas, which is something most other creationists here are either unable or unwilling to do.A good example is the debate about variation she engaged in recently with Crashfrog, Quetzal (and others). She doesn't have a scientific background, but I think she did a good job of following the implications of the evolutionary theory and teasing out the implications of her own beliefs. The debate led to some excellent posts both from her and from Crashfrog and Quetzal, and the fact that the debate eventually foundered doesn't detract from its value.If you were to bar her from the scientific debates would that improve the quality of the debate? I'd argue that it wouldn't. Either we would end up having abstruse discussions amongst ouselves about the finer points of evolutionary theory or cosmology (which might be interesting in itself, but not necessarily what you want at a forum for debating Creationism and Evolution), or we would have to waste our time arguing about the kind of pseudo-scientific tosh that randman is/was fond of spouting.So, by all means call Faith to account for specific infringements of forum guidelines, but don't apply any blanket bans on her contribution. As I'm sure someone else has noted, if Faith didn't exist then we'd have to invent her.Edited by JavaMan, : typo

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

I'm sure the problem is more difficult than that. Perhaps see it this way.Faith is articulate and has problems with forum guidelines at times. On the other hand, in survey of Post of the Months I did some time back, Faith was the person whose opponents were most nominated for Potm's - lending support to the expressed view in this thread that she challenges opponants to work hard in their opposition.She is a high volume poster too.Now Faith sits in a pool of posters, the total of whom make up the flavour and quality of EvC. If we were to imagine for a moment that Faith were divided into 4 separate posters then we would have 4 articulate posters who are capable of high quality and who exhibit the problems Percy suggests of them. These 4 posters would be average volume posters.In this fashion, we see that these 4 posters dissappear into a much larger pool of posters very many of which exhibit the very same positive/negative attributes as our gang of four. We see immediately that these 4 are rendered a relatively insignificant portion of the whole - the whole is that which sets the tone and quality.If one is to eliminate Faith then it is only 4 drops removed from the bathful of any problem. It seems to me that if one is seriously intent on addressing a global problem then one must evolve things on a macro level. Not on the micro.

That's why I said 'Faith may be in breach of the rule, but not in the way you might be thinking'

But you are making it more complicated than it needs to be.The problem is a member dragging threads off-topic, inability to follow rules, and hindering topic progress.The easy solution is to ban her completely.All the micro macro stuff only clouds the issue.Fatc is, faith demands an extraordinary amount of admin time, she has had more leeway than any evo has ever had, there have been many strategies attempted with her and nothing has worked.Everything that people are suggesting here, the stricter moderation, the restrictions on posting have all been tried before, and there's no point in trying them again.All I am saying is that Percy knows what type of member he wants here, he is prepared to guide and help people who are not quite grasping what debate and the supporting of arguments are, but there comes a time when he realises that some people will just never come close to the standards he is looking for and something has to be done.What I have suggested is the simple solution. The waters do not need to be muddied by posting frequencies or POTM's.What do you suggest Percy does with Faith? Restict her to the theology forums where she can verbally abuse people there?Brian.