Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 285 (354128)
10-04-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Brian
10-04-2006 6:25 AM


Brian writes:
Since she has been tolerated here for so long, and not only has her bad behaviour been largely ignored, you have rewarded her with an adminship!
Adminship isn't a privilege but a curse. Faith got what she deserved when I made her an admin.
Seriously, she seems to be doing a very good job as admin, though I wish she were more active. Which reminds me, our next moderator meeting will take up the issue of relatively inactive admins.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 10-04-2006 6:25 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 6:50 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 27 of 285 (354213)
10-04-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AdminModulous
10-04-2006 12:00 PM


Re: Don't ban Faith but DO moderate more in science threads
AdminModulous writes:
This simply should not have been allowed. The rules state that you need to support your argument with evidence.
Faith may be in breach of the rule, but not in the way you might be thinking,
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
This rule from the Forum Guidelines has proved confusing on a couple of occasions. The reason for the "and/or" between "evidence" and "reasoned argumentation" is because no one is expected to recapitulate the evidence relevant to his point in every post. During the course of a discussion some posts will contain evidence, some posts will contain reasoned argumentation, and some will contain both.
But both evidence and reasoned argumentation are required in order to make a valid point, though in the case of obvious evidence one can forgo the reasoned argumentation. Your reasoning about pink dragons might be perfect, but without evidence of pink dragons it holds no significance.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AdminModulous, posted 10-04-2006 12:00 PM AdminModulous has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 285 (354329)
10-05-2006 4:34 AM


Clarifying the Issue
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Brian, posted 10-05-2006 7:02 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 57 by JavaMan, posted 10-05-2006 8:21 AM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 64 of 285 (354387)
10-05-2006 10:40 AM


An Example
Faith provided an example of the very behavior I'm most concerned about after I had already raised the issue in the admin forum concerning her recent contributions. I'm sure the Faith Science - Logically Indefensible thread has already been referenced in this discussion, but breaking down the issue into a little more detail might help people understand why I'm concerned. Here I summarize Faith's messages in this thread:
  • Message 3: Off-topic declaration that evolution is not science but is instead "imaginative".
  • Message 1: Declares the Bible to contain facts relevant to origins.
  • Message 16: Declares opponents to be wrong about what a fact is.
  • Message 19: Off-topic parody of her view of criticism of witness evidence.
  • Message 21: Off-topic declaration that there is a ton of evidence for the Biblical flood.
  • Message 23: Off-topic parody questioning Napoleon's existence.
  • Message 24: Begs off addressing a reply because "THAT would be LONG discussion".
  • Message 49: Good post arguing for the accuracy of Biblical accounts from the flood to Jesus.
  • Message 55: Good post, includes the concession that the Bible doesn't have external corroboration.
  • Message 61: Off-topic digression onto the flood.
  • Message 67: Good post again arguing for accepting the facts of the Bible as facts despite the lack of external corroboration.
  • Message 71: Off-topic declaration of belief in the flood and the Bible as God's Word.
  • Message 74: Declares doesn't want to be on this thread anymore. Never replies to immediately previous detailed responses to her arguments.
  • Message 75: Long post, but includes declaration that belief in the flood is based upon the objective evidence provided in the Bible. Addresses none of the substance of previous responses concerning these issues.
  • Message 79: Declares that science would never abandon a position based on known fact. Faith had left the realm of rational discussion some time previously, this was the culmination. Declares Paul's statements to be objective fact and the Biblical accounts as objective statements of fact. Still does not address previous responses relevant to her declarations.
  • Message 81: Reiterates that she's talking about known facts.
  • Message 104: Brief response agreeing with Purpledawn.
  • Message 107: Short and cryptic response to Nwr. This was Faith's last post.
Despite repeated attempts, Faith never addressed herself to the topic or the key issues, and she ignored detailed responses that took people considerable effort, myself included. She simply repeated her declarations of what she believes over and over and over again.
Now, this behavior in and of itself is not sufficient to get one suspended. But this was the pattern of participation that I had had the opportunity to observe over the past four or five weeks.
My own position was that action must be taken, but I didn't realize when I initially proposed a permanent suspension that it would be so widely opposed. While it seems that existing members have largely become philosophical about Faith's behavior and say that this is just Faith being Faith (we have a remarkable number of long-timers), new members are going to react with, "I thought you promised a venue where debate could be focused and constructive and where members couldn't get away with evasion and insults and obfuscation. What's going on here?"
This is why we have the Forum Guidelines and why they must do our best to apply them fairly and evenly. But we shouldn't just ignore them.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 12:11 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 178 of 285 (354743)
10-06-2006 9:29 AM


Reopening This Topic
Constructive discussion requires that the participants have to genuinely want to be constructive. It only takes a single participant in a message board discussion to sabotage discussion, and it can be accomplished through a variety of techniques, including but not limited to accusations false or not, flamboyant comments, outrageous comments, going off-topic and stonewalling.
I've suspended Randman, hover over the suspension icon to see the reason. He has some unfinished business he would like to discuss, and he is free to discuss it to his heart's content in the showcase forum when his suspension expires. Or, if he'd like to be constructive and respectful and on-topic, he can discuss them in the threads here.
I'm tentatively reopening this topic, but if the off-topic digression resumes then I will close it again. The topic of this thread is to *constructively* discuss whether Faith's participation here represents a significant obstacle to productive debate to the point where administrative action is warranted.
To briefly summarize, I sense a sort of split consensus where on the one hand Faith is considered a staunch advocate of the creationist viewpoint who stimulates many excellent evolutionary explanations, while on the other hand presenting a significant challenge to evolutionary arguments primarily through her inability or unwillingness to comprehend or address them. Those who take the former viewpoint seem to outnumber the latter by quite a bit, though I haven't made anything like an exact count.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 192 of 285 (354801)
10-06-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
10-06-2006 12:12 PM


Faith writes:
But the hostility faction, and the aggressive reiteration as if they were established facts of some of the arguments I feel I've answered time and time again, take the wind out of me. How can I continue to post freely with that much against me?
This is a good example of what I find so objectionable. Though I've laid out my criticisms in detail and with evidence, instead of offering counterarguments with counter-evidence you make general declarations about how this is just so untrue and so unfair and so overwhelming that how can you be expected to counter it.
You're received a lot of support in these discussions, and I think you deserve it because there is a lot to your credit, but if you refuse to accept criticism and refuse to perform any self-examination of your approach to discussion and refuse to accept much if any responsibility for your behavior here, and if because of this you continue to contribute in the same manner, then I will probably continue to object to your presence here.
I should mention something else unrelated. Schraf said you only begin regular participation in 2005. I'm sure that's wrong, though your message database records no messages in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004. But my vague recollection is that you began contributing in earnest in 2003. Does that sound right to you? Anyway, your message history will be fixed when the threads move into the database, though I don't know when that will happen.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 12:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:05 PM Admin has replied
 Message 194 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 2:10 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 206 of 285 (354821)
10-06-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-06-2006 2:05 PM


Faith writes:
Schraf is correct. I signed on in 2001 but only posted a few messages then, and did not post again for about three years. I started posting regularly in February of 2005.
In less than 2 years you have nearly 10,000 posts? No wonder it feels like you're omnipresent! Jesus Christ himself couldn't keep up such a pace! No wonder it feels like you've been here for years.
Faith, I've been here since the beginning, and except for vacations I'm here every single day, and as Percy I have only half as many posts as you. Only Jar and Crash have more, but not by much and they've been here much longer.
Could I suggest emphasizing quality over quantity? It isn't necessary that you take on all of evolution-dom by yourself. A few effective arguments are going to go a lot further than many insubstantial ones.
Research your topics, conscientiously address rebuttals, support your arguments with evidence. Strong arguments will defeat hundreds of weak ones. Go for quality and stop the frenetic posting behavior.
I notice Randman has been here only a little over a year but has over 5000 posts despite being often suspended - that's far too many.
I wasn't aware there were such high posting rates going on. We need posting limits.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 2:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:18 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 215 of 285 (354833)
10-06-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
10-06-2006 3:17 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Faith writes:
I don't know why you can't follow this. I am explaining MY reference points, NOT trying to persuade YOU to them. I am explaining that Biblical creationists will always take the Flood as a FACT, whether you do or not, and your definitions simply make no difference because we believe the God who made all things said it.
You were correct when you noted this is off-topic, but it is possible to cast this into the context of this discussion. The thread where this came up was in the science forums. You have to be willing to discuss the observational and/or experimental foundation of your facts to see if they qualify as scientific facts. You can't just declare that your facts are facts that can't be disputed or discussed, not if you're doing science, and not in a forum whose reason for being is discussion. Your persistent refusal to discuss this combined with persistent repetition of it is a good example of what causes me to attempt to limit your participation here. Too many discussions where you participate eventually boil down to dancing around the same mulberry bush, and I would like this pattern to end.
It is within your power to leave this merry-go-round behind. All you have to do is address the substance contained in replies to you, such as Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible that spent quite a bit of time explaining why scientific facts do not originate in books. Responding to well argued rebuttals with declarations of belief is what is getting you into trouble in the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 3:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 4:02 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 4:35 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 224 of 285 (354849)
10-06-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by iceage
10-06-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
troxelso writes:
That is a lie....
Probably a little too emphatic, mistaken might have been a better choice of words. Take a short break.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by iceage, posted 10-06-2006 3:34 PM iceage has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 233 of 285 (354864)
10-06-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
10-06-2006 4:35 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Faith writes:
That is a ridiculous and obvious point, Percy, to which the obvious answer is that the Bible is not regarded by Biblical creationists as just a book, which I believe is how I answered, and if you will not accept Biblical creationist premises -- not for yourself or for EvC but as a simple statement of our position -- there is nothing more that can be said.
This is another good example of why you experience so many problems here. Too many times the discussion comes down to your assertion that nothing more can be said. You can't repeatedly draw people into the middle of detailed discussions and then suddenly throw up your hands and quit, not without drawing moderator attention.
As everyone knows, there is always plenty that can be said. I'm not sure why you think it is reasonable to require that others "accept Biblical creationist premises" without your side having to make any effort at persuasion or argument. This is a debate site. The expectation is that there will be evidence and argumentation from each side for their respective positions. If you're not willing to discuss and defend your position, then you shouldn't be participating in a debate site. This isn't a creationist issue, it's just what a discussion is: give and take, back and forth and all that.
1) I don't regard that as a well-argued rebuttal (Faith is referring to Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible) to say the least, but merely your statement of position which no creationist is allowed to disagree with, or YOUR statement of belief; and...
No, Faith, it is not a statement of belief, and of course disagreement is permitted. What isn't permitted is exactly what you're doing here, yet another dismissal from you without addressing anything of substance while once again declaring your point of view.
2) I answered it, I did not merely give a statement of belief. It was to make a point.
Faith, Faith, please, do not be irrational. I am spending much time with you, and this descent into denial is wasting my time and yours. You did not answer anything in my post, and you did give just a statement of belief. Here's the entirety of your reply:
Faith in Message 71 of Thread Faith Science etc... writes:
I believe the flood is evident in the geo column and that will eventually be shown empirically.
The Bible is God's word, it is not "some book." Your not believing that makes no difference to whether or not its statements are facts. That was the point of my post.
End of discussion.
That reply is an almost perfect example of the problem. This is a discussion board, not a "Faith Declares the Truth" board. If you can't discuss constructively then I would prefer that you not participate here. This has nothing to with creationist beliefs, it has to do with uniformly enforcing the Forum Guidelines that require everyone to discuss constructively. If you choose to continue stonewalling and declaring instead of discussing then that is your choice. All I'm doing is pursuing my goal of making EvC Forum a premiere site for discussion of the creation/evolution controversy.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:15 PM Admin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 260 of 285 (354963)
10-07-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Adminnemooseus
10-06-2006 10:34 PM


Re: Faith puts out large amounts of high quality bs
Adminnemooseus writes:
It seems that Faith does indeed disagree with evolutionary fact and theory on a purely faith basis. But then she also goes on profess that the science is bad, without much if any scientific argument on why and how the science is bad. In the process, she clutters up a lot of science oriented topics with her "eloquent bs".
This is well put, and I'd like to elaborate on this to the general community.
Faith is well within her rights and the Forum Guidelines to say that, for example, the flood happened because she has faith in God's word, and God's word says it happened. But in the science forums she can't say the science is wrong just because God says so. In the science forums one has to advance a scientific argument for a position, not a faith-based argument.
EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that it is as much science as evolution, and that at a minimum it deserves a place alongside evolution in the classroom. This requires making scientific arguments, which is what most of the creationist literature in books and on the web claims to do.
Faith is not a traditional creationist in that she isn't pushing for creationism to be taught in public schools, and she sees no need for making a scientific case for creationism. She believes that God's word is sufficient for concluding creationism's stance is correct. Faith is more than welcome to argue this position here at this forum.
But EvC Forum does have topics and forums and categories of forums. Faith-based approaches are not permitted in the science forums. Claims that a faith-based approach is valid science can be discussed in the [forum=-11] forum, with the emphasis on "discussed". Declarations that certain premises must be accepted and can't be discussed is not a valid position at a discussion board. If Faith doesn't accept this then she is more than welcome to open a thread to discuss why her underlying premises must be accepted, again with the emphasis on "discuss", but unless her arguments in that thread carry the day she cannot carry this position into other science threads.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-06-2006 10:34 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 10-07-2006 10:46 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 264 of 285 (354973)
10-07-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
10-07-2006 10:46 AM


Re: Faith puts out large amounts of high quality bs
Faith writes:
What thread do you have in mind, Percy? Seems to me that OP about faith based science can ONLY be answered as I answered it. It's not a science thread at all, really, it's a Statement-of-Position thread.
Of course the thread begins with a statement of position. In a debate a position is stated, and one side takes the pro, the other the con.
Could we take the level of discussion up a notch? It shouldn't have to be explained what a debate is. Is your goal to reach a satisfactory resolution or to be as obtuse as possible?
Faith, if you have any beliefs or positions that you don't feel are open for discussion, then don't discuss them. But don't keep bringing them up, either. This is a discussion board. You shouldn't be introducing positions into discussions that in your opinion are off-limits for discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 10-07-2006 10:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 282 of 285 (355351)
10-09-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by CK
10-08-2006 2:32 PM


Re: Where can the debate go?
One other thing we have to keep in mind is the democratization of the Internet with regard to technical and/or scientific savvy. Ten to fifteen years ago, creationists who participated in on-line debate tended to be of a technical bent. That's no longer the case. We're getting increasing numbers of contributors who, if we're honest with ourselves but hopefully don't give voice to this, cause us to think, "Can anyone truly be this stupid or ignorant or blind?"
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. EvC Forum is not going to successfully educate waves of the uneducatable. The best we can do is shield ourselves from those unwilling or unable to intelligently discuss and/or explore a topic by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Sadly this will exclude some truly nice people, but it can't be helped.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by CK, posted 10-08-2006 2:32 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Michael, posted 10-09-2006 5:39 PM Admin 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