Lets make things better

The issue of banning Faith has raged to redline. It was to be expected. And I think it is safe to say at this point that she will not be banned. The discussion however has brought all kinds of views out of the closet. War is the mother of invention.I have followed the thread closely and I can see both Faiths side (because I am on it) and the opposing side (because I am on it too - in a manner of speaking). One thing is safe to say and the discussion about Faith is indicative of it: we, whatever our position - are grossly inefficient.There are a lot of smart people around on this site. Smart in this, that and the other way. But we are also argumentitive: arguing is an overwhelmingly obvious trait. Not that that this is a surprise: that's what you get when you get families - or which we are a sort. 4000 posts in and I could dump half of them on account of them saying the same old thing - in rebutting the same old thing. I am not alone.Lets face it. That folk are smart in one area doesn't mean we are not stupid in a another. Are smart people who argue any better than not-so-smart people who argue? I think not. Its ugly and we are smart enough to know it is ugly. Some amongst our number may revel in it but most absolutely do not. They get frustrated and angry and upset...and sometimes they get banned.I might disagree with Percy on all manner of things but this I do not disagree with. He wants, and is entitled to want - given his input, that the level of discussion at EvC be raised above its current level. EvC is not the worst. But it cannot be said to be the best either. And Percy has not the power to make it so by himself. I manage people for a living and this I know for a fact.Faith? She is not the issue. We are the issue. And if we are not smart enough to be able to drag this kicking, screaming melting pot called EvC to higher levels than the sum of its smartness has managed to reach, then smart counts for less than we think.So why not figure out and agree on a way. Post your suggestions here. Each and any suggestion can birth a thread on its own particular subject and the conclusion of that be incorporated into a larger movement. If Percy thinks it fit he can lead this movement. It's not that one iteration (that might arise out of this thread) will resolve things overnight - but if 50% efficiency was gained on the first, second and third effort then 2 years hence we might expect EvC to be a more efficient beast. The kind of beast that would attract (and eat) Dawkins for breakfast We might borrow from the thinking of an electronic goods giant (Philips) who (probably) paid millions to arrive at this slogan: "Lets make things better". It's slimey, it's trite, it's cloying in its big corporation-ness. But it is, in fact, the only way you can make things better.So lets...

To get the ball rolling: should there be limits on an individuals level of posting? I will take my own sister and myself to task on this. One cannot, simply cannot be part of a high quality forum if they are posting at this level. Lets not forget there are quiet times (we all must sleep or are on holidays or whatever) so its not a matter of sheer number but intensity of numberPublish or perish need not arise here and my gut feeling is that many get into an almost "instant mail" mentality. How does one figure out a sensible system of post limiting: one that allows for head to head debate but discourages ranting and raving, needling, insult and diversion. If felt to be the subject of a topic then take it to the appropriate thread - your off topic here. This is a suggestion forum.

A slightly larger subject here. One issue that has arisen from the "Ban Faith" thread has to do with the creo/naturalist approach to science. Both sides feel very strongly that the other is bastardizing what science is about. I'll lay out the idea of a constitution rapidly by using this as one example of something that could be included in it. This is not the thread to discuss "what science is"
*********************************************************************A item submitted for consideration as an article of an EvC constitution(sample)The issue: "What is our common agreement about what constitutes science" (what is permitted/what is excluded)"An argument I have been making in the Ban Faith thread is that Creo science cannot be dismissed simply because Creos take for granted that belief means science is not open to any and all possibilities. Creos can hold this view and do scientific method to support a particular view (the flood being an obvious example). Others suppose an open-ended view of science in which no possibility can be exluded. But they too hold to scientific methodology. See the common ground??If philosophy/belief is an inherant part of "what science is" for both side then clearly the two sides can never discuss and inefficiencey will ensue whilst this old chesnut rears its head time after time. If it could be agreed that:

quote:

---

doing and arguing science is divorced from an individuals philosophy/belief about what science involves. (more to be added following agreement)

---

.. then the discussion would revolve only around the evidence. This is efficient.The idea of an EvC constitution is to arrive at a conclusion to repetitive matters such as this oft repeated issue. And if conclusion is arrived at then that conclusion is inserted into the Constitution and can never (bar for exceptional circumstances which compel reexamination) be invoked by either side in debate. It would save a lot of bandwidth of nothing else.*********************************************************************This constitution could extend to all areas. Gods omniscience vs free will is another area that springs to mind at random. If decided that that it is impossible to say definitively that the one (his omniscience) exludes the possibility of the other (a mans will) then let that be decided for once and all. These are my own personals: I don't suggest the set up of them is correct. They are for sample only. The formulation of the issues is a precursor to figuring out and article of the constitution. Oh what fun that would be!I said in the OP that our problem was that we are inefficient. A commonly agreed on Constitution of agreed on rules of engagement aims to reduce not only the repetition (inefficient) but the argument and upset and anger. It can be no bad thing - if hard fought over. Lets face it: if well executed we can all smile at the silly attempts that would attempt to usurp it - whatever side of the fence we sitEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Creative approach to the problem, bro. I'll think about it. Do you have any proposals for a constitution yourself?

See edit above. What is the commonly accepted denominator when it comes to talking about what science is?If decided constitutionally thereafter the discussion only includes that shared definition. There would be no more appeals to any and all philosophies/beliefs. No appeal to:a) "its fact because God says so and Gods word usurps any scientific evidence".b)"it is not science if you cannot be swayed from any and all beliefs on the basis of the evidence"It may be difficult to find agreement on such an article but anything is better than this merry go round we are all on at the momentEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry but while "a)" might be something a person believes, "b)" is an essential part of science.Science is not democracy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dammit,Ian, there are posts like this that make me wish you were an atheist. I don`t think you will ever eradicate the anger factor as opposing statements challenge one`s raison d`etre. We all long for security in our life and the worms of unease tend to trigger fightback.What may help is a description of how to effectively put an argument together as many come here with no idea of a constructive layout. Not having framed their stance properly tends to provoke anger when the experts start demolishing the original statement. Perhaps something along the lines of:Premise (or claim or whatever)Limits of claimStrengths (points for)Weaknesses (points against)Challenge of strengthsRebuttal of weaknessesSummaryHaving to put one`s claim to the torch, so to speak, BEFORE posting, might save the proposer a lot of grief by anticipating what will be thrown at him/her. This might go a long way to defusing the anger when challenged.

As with most problems in life the best solution is a technical solution.I would like to see a kill-file feature. You select specific user names into your kill-file store. You then would not see any posts _or_ any threads of discussion that follow from subsequent posts from users in this store.This would encourage people to:

Post with quality instead of quantity and contribute value instead of provoking contention.

​

Stick to the subject

​

Not take extreme or illogical views

​

A person who tries to troll, grandstand or gum up a discussion (not mentioning any names) would find themselves shut out and would realize that they are basically talking to themselves.

​

Make this feature so that you can define scope of a kill-file entry (ie which forums to apply). Also provide a time out option so that a kill-file entry would time out after a certain period of time.

​

This would enable everyone to be their own moderator and would reduce the need for external moderation.

An alternative I have seen is a post rating system, where people can click on a "good" or "bad" icon at the top of each post they read. Each post has a score, +1 for a click on "good" and -1 for a click on "bad". When the score for a post reaches some negative threshold (i.e. -25) the post is collapsed so that only its title heading is visible but the contents of the post itself is hidden. The post can only be read by expanding the post. This allows anybody to read any and all of the posts (all they have to do is click on the "expand" icon for a bad post in order to read it), but makes it possible to browse a thread without having the interesting posts swamped out by all of the bickering etc.for example message nine has been "buried" on this forum on the basis that over ten people gave it the thumbs down.MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

quote:

---

doing and arguing science is divorced from an individuals philosophy/belief about what science involves. (more to be added following agreement

---

i.e. "Since we have a problem with creationists making unscientiifc and anti-scientific claims in the science fora we should destropy the definition of science to allow them to do that". The reference to "personal philosphies" is especially dishonest since it attempts to rule that the speakers "personal philosphy" is correct - as opposed to the generally accepted usage.Legitimising the problem will not make it go away, it will only encourage it. This proposal is a blatant attempt to rig debate in favour of the creationists.It is completely unacceptable.

There are a number of issues being discussed for this OP:
1. Science vs fit-observations-into-dogma
2. Quality of posts (including structure of content & courtesy)
3. Repetition of informationRE: 1
IMO, you should not limit the forum to just science approach, since that will limit what creationists can post as explanations. Quite frankly, I like to see how creationists think when explaining what to some of us seems obvious cause-and-effect outcomes.RE: 2
Go eat a roach !RE: 3
Some posts are so full of information you want to "frame them" and be able to access them in a more structured way, such a navigating a tree of knowledge through basic questions to more detailed ones. Frequently, some veteran posters refer to those buried archive posts, and that should not be the burden of the poster. I think it's RAZD that has a geological mega-post that I like and I wish I could reference and even build upon.The admins could be granted branches of the tree with the edit capability to save posts that build the tree.Each branch could allow different viewpoints to explain the debate point (obvious example: E vs C views). But you can't limit the debate to just two viewpoints, since a Bible-inerrant Christian might have a different view than a Bible-is-just-a-story believer.To summarize, the forum can be open discussion as-is, but the admins could create branches of the tree (perhaps using a wiki?) and cut and paste knowledge(perhaps starting at the root with "Is there a God (or two)"). Each branch can split into multiple alternative explanations and so on.

see, it's posts like that that really scare me!I read the OP and here I am thinking how can the person who writes such eloquent, insightful, thought-provoking posts come up -not so long ago- with syllogisms such as "well, if there are contradictions in the Bible then there's something wrong with us for thinking so and not with the Bible."it's almost like a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde syndrome, scary stuff.anyway, as you were

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

So all it takes is ten votes by evos to bury a creo comment and vice versa? Regardless of the value of the post?We are talking about a forum where adversity is part of the package.I'd rather have an "off topic" flag that can be triggered by anyone and then activated by an admin (the flag sends a message to the admin forum). That would be less intrusive on the thread than big "DO NOT RESPOND" banners and signs.One could also have an "off-topic" meter for each poster that would show the number of off-topic posts in the last 24 hours ... I know I'd have days with a few ticks on that.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.