Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 302 (357032)
10-17-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-16-2006 8:11 PM


Being neutral while moderating a debate does not require adopting a stance of feigned ignorance. This is not the Humpty-Dumpty Forum where words can be defined any way you like, and when you decide on your own to argue incorrect definitions, such as that the requirement of peer review is satisfied by publishing for the lay public, then moderator intervention is needed in order to discourage nonsense discussions.
I can give you a couple suggestions. One is to inform yourself of the way practicing scientists view the qualities and methodologies of science, then contrast this with the way creationists view the qualities and methodologies of science. Then you could follow with examples of how well or poorly these differing views contributed to research that advanced the state of the art. Vague unsupported statements claiming there are creationists out there gathering and analyzing evidence and doing legitimate science does not suffice. Perpetual motion machine advocates frequently have pages and pages of equations in addition to working prototypes, so their claims of doing legitimate science are far stronger than anything you've offered so far, yet they are hopelessly out in left field. If you can't offer evidence of doing legitimate science that is stronger than the hopeless perpetual motion people, then you so far have less than nothing.
And I'm not saying this to take sides in the debate. The above is just an assessment of your evidence and argument thus far. The evolutionist side has been almost equally poor in offering evidence and argument for their own point of view, though there have been a few very strong posts, at least one each from Straggler and RAZD. You seem to have trouble remembering that I've been critical of both sides. You might take a lesson from the evolutionists in the discussion: don't complain about the criticism, just try to do better.
My other suggestion is to focus on the topic. You're investing much more effort complaining about posts and moderators than actually discussing the topic. I think this might be because you are focusing on the non-technical parts of posts, and this tendency is unnecessarily pulling you off-topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2006 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-17-2006 11:53 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 57 of 302 (359275)
10-27-2006 9:19 AM


Moderating the Science Forums
Hi all!
Unhappy with the direction that the recent What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread had taken, Buzsaw has been expressing his belief that biased moderation is taking place. I can sympathize with Buzsaw about his unfortunate experience in that thread, but I believe he has only his poor judgment to blame. Faith has experienced similar difficulties in the science forums, and for the same reason.
The poor judgment I'm referring to concerns decisions to participate in discussions on topics about which they know little, which for Faith and Buzsaw means many of the science topics. They seem to believe that their lack of knowledge about a subject should not be a barrier to participation as the primary party on the creation side, and once the tide inevitably turns against them they become frustrated and start leveling personal accusations at all and sundry that have nothing to do with the topic. In fact, in the recent thread mentioned above Buzsaw devoted a significant amount of message space to off-topic complaints and accusations of bias, and to unsupported reiterations of his initial premise.
It seems never to occur to Faith and Buzsaw that the poor outcomes are due to their lack of familiarity with the topics they're discussing. In almost all cases they aren't even willing to study up on a issue. They seem determined to maintain their initial state of ignorance.
Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that Buzsaw doesn't know how to play chess. He might in reality be a fantastic chess player, but let's assume for now that he is unfamiliar with the game. During an evening dinner one of Buzsaw's friends claims to be the best chess player in the world. Buzsaw is pretty certain that this can't be true, and he decides to prove that it isn't true. And the way he decides to prove this isn't true is to challenge his friend to a few games of chess.
His friend explains the rules, and he has to continually re-explain the rules during play, especially those tricky en passant pawn captures and castling moves. It takes only a few hours for Buzsaw to lose 97 games in a row (those of you who have been chess beginners learning against an experienced player know how easy it is for this to happen), after which he starts complaining that the rules are biased and rigged against him, and that his friend is unfairly imposing upon him rules that place him at a disadvatage. Who decided that the king should be the least powerful piece on the board? Why can't a black bishop change to the white squares? All pieces should be able to jump, and any piece that reaches the far side of the board should be able to become a queen.
But Buzsaw has no basis for his charges. His poor performance has nothing to do with his friend's integrity nor with the rules of chess. His poor performance is due to the fact that it takes years and years to become a good chess player, and he is simply not competent to challenge his friend's claim that he is the world's best chess player.
The analogy quickly breaks down, of course. The rules of chess are arbitrary, while the qualities and methodologies of science have developed empirically after much experiment and study. But the issue of competence is the same. Buzsaw is as unqualified to challenge his friend's claim to be the world's best chess player as he is to challenge the evolutionist's claim that creationism is not science. Buzsaw might be better served asking why more competent creationists aren't taking up the challenge he has improvidently set himself.
We have all encouraged both Faith and Buzsaw to read up on the topics they discuss, but for the most part they choose not to. We've explained that familiarizing themselves with science does not mean accepting everything science says, but whether fear of being convinced or tainted plays any role or not, in they end they choose not to study up on subjects they're discussing.
And it's a mystery to me why they don't do this. Indeed, almost no creationist does this. At the superficial (usually) level that topics are discussed at discussion boards, it doesn't take a lot of time to study up to the point where you can intelligently discuss almost anything.
Anyway, Buzsaw should not conclude, and I'm sure has not concluded, that his poor performance in the aforementioned thread is the final word on the topic of whether creationists do real science. Just as Buzsaw's friend beating him 97 games in a row is no indicator of how good his friend really is at chess, Buzsaw's poor performance in that thread is no indicator of whether creationists really do science. That's because the creationist advocates in that thread were wholly unqualified to discuss the topic. The next time Buzsaw wants to dispute something in the science threads, I suggest he either study up (that doesn't mean just looking up words in the dictionary) or recruit someone who's already familiar with the topic.
Though I've used Faith and Buzsaw as my examples, I think this is good advice for anyone, myself included. Do not enter a thread half-cocked. If after a few exchanges things don't seem to be going your way, then either withdraw and lurk, or start doing your homework so you can do better. If you find yourself complaining and blaming instead of discussing the topic then you've chosen the wrong course.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AdminFaith, posted 10-28-2006 11:50 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 7:03 PM Admin has replied

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


Message 63 of 302 (359552)
10-28-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
10-28-2006 7:03 PM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Hi Buz,
I'd like to thank both you and Faith for responding to my Message 57 regarding the recently concluded What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread. If either of you would like to continue to discuss or debate the nature and practice of science then please propose a new thread.
Buzsaw writes:
Those complaints, my friend were intended to be constructive to the site so as to address the ongoing problem you have in acquiring and retaining competent IDist and/or creo input for the evo folks here to debate.
I appreciate your concern, but I characterize the problem differently. What I usually say is that bad debate pushes out good debate. Off-topic complaints should be made in this thread, not in the thread in which the debate is taking place. The debate threads should remain focused as much as is possible on the topic.
Buzsaw writes:
If I emailed you one email I received from Chris Miller regarding his assessment of TOE or if you sat in on one of his seminar sessions you would reject those arguments as non-science as well, unfit to be used in your so called evo/creo science debate forums...
No, Buz, I wouldn't. I didn't do this with you, and I wouldn't do it with Chris Miller. I would do for Chris Miller precisely what I did for you, which is to explain the qualities and practice of science, and assess the offered creation science examples against those criteria while explaining in detail why they do or do not meet them. It makes no sense to respond, "The rules of science are unfair to creationism." What's being taught in science classrooms today follows those rules, and if creationism wants to be called science then it must follow the same set of rules. If it follows a different set of rules then it isn't science.
You mentioned Baumgardner again, so let me explain to you why your arguments in favor of his science are so far off the mark. I told you that the Baumgardner paper we briefly considered wasn't science because he was not hypothesizing about an observed natural phenomenon. Though you've written many, many words, you've never addressed that point, the essential point. Constructive discussion means identifying and addressing the key issues, and when you're not able to do this then you should avoid digging in your heels and posting copiously to the bitter end anyway. It is yours and Faith's tendency to do this that causes me to encourage you both to skirt carefully around the science forums. I know you both have good intentions, but as we all know, those are the paving stones for a well-trod road. My suggestion to both of you, indeed to everyone, is to inform yourself first, then discuss.
Creationist input is important to EvC Forum. That's why we have creationist moderators such as you and Faith. But the value of your contributions is hindered by irrational claims. It makes no more sense for you to dispute the focus of science on the natural then it would be for me to dispute the central role of Jesus Christ in Christianity. Both positions are perfectly valid for discussion, but only in threads designated to consider them. We won't be allowing such views to form the basis of anyone's position in other threads because they are both foundational, one to science and the other to Christianity, and so would completely derail on-topic discussion in any thread.
I'm not saying anything new. I've said these things many times before. I am not making this up as I go along. The framework within which discussion at EvC Forum takes place is the product of much thought and and reflection by a number of people over a number of years, you and Faith included, and I serve as the final arbiter.
Uppermost in importance here at EvC is constructively contributing to discussion. As we have seen any number of times, a thread can be hindered or stonewalled though a wide variety of means, and it is the responsibility of moderator's to ensure that this is kept to a minimum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 7:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Admin has replied

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


Message 65 of 302 (359598)
10-29-2006 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
10-28-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Buzsaw writes:
I'm going to have another good look at Baumgardner's flood paper and see if I can ascertain your problem with it relative to your message 144 as to what you see as science. I'm not comprehending a valid argument on your part as to why that paper fails your test, since it's physical, observable, and testable data that he's hypothesising about in his paper. Perhaps that would be something to open a thread on if I see enough there to debate. I'm not sure I can do so without crumpling a few of your tulips though and I'm not into making this place an unpleasant experience for either of us.
One significant factor hindering constructive discussion is your tendency to reply to substantive arguments with nebulous and unsupported characterizations. I called science's focus on the natural as foundational and likened it to Jesus Christ being foundational to Christianity, but you ignored this and replied by likening science to fragile tulips.
The key point on the table is that focusing on the natural is foundational to science. Unless you reply to that point it isn't possible for constructive discussion to continue. It is replies such as the one you just made that leads me to characterize you and Faith as unable to constructively contribute in the science forums.
As I made extremely clear in my prior message, constructive discussion is a primary goal of EvC Forum, and your inability to contribute constructively to the science forums is why I encouraged you and Faith to skirt carefully around them, and not because science is a fragile tulip. I am acting within the moderator guidelines to protect and encourage constructive discussion here at EvC Forum, not to protect science from being fully examined and explored.
You characterize Baumgardner's creationist work as "physical, observable, and testable data that he's hypothesising about in his paper..." As was explained to you several times in the What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread, Baumgardner is just dressing up his ideas in scientific-looking clothing. What he's doing is necessary but not sufficient to be science. Making observations and analyzing data is not by itself what makes something science. Science studies the natural world, and step one of the scientific method is observing a phenomenon of the natural world.
Since Baumgardner is not beginning with any observations of phenomena which would indicate a world wide flood or catastrophic plate tectonics, he is not doing science. All he is doing is speculating about how certain events described in the Bible might not really be impossible.
I am responding about Baumgardner in this thread only as an adjunct to making clear my position on moderating the science forums. This is not the thread for a discussion of Baumgardner's views. I am explaining why what he is doing is not science here in this thread where is not on-topic only to make clear to you why this is a moderation issue, not bias, which is what you and Faith are claiming. In other words, if you choose to respond, please keep the focus on moderation issues.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2006 11:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:41 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 68 of 302 (359624)
10-29-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
10-29-2006 8:41 AM


Re: Moderating the Science Forums
Buzsaw writes:
It appears that "skirting around" means "stay out" of science. If that's what you mean why not just say it? You know if we go in there we're going in as IDists to debate as such. Right?
I have not been pussyfooting around. I have not been ambiguous. I have not been speaking euphemistically. When I declared that you and Faith have demonstrated your incapability of contributing constructively in the science forums, describing you as digging in your heels while continuing to post copiously to the end, I don't think I was leaving anything to the imagination.
So when I said "skirting around" I did not mean "stay out". The "skirting around" phrase was intended to be interpreted in the context of the rest of my message, not just pulled out and examined in a vacuum. Since you can't seem to understand plain English, let me spell things out for you absolutely incredibly plainly so there can be no doubt about my meaning.
Please do not contribute to the science forums unless you do so while taking the following into account:
  • Make sure you understand the topic before attempting to contribute.
  • Alternatively, ask questions about things you don't understand.
  • If you don't understand or are not familiar with a topic but wish to contribute anyway then state your opinion while staying focused on the topic, but do not go beyond that to the point where you're obstructing or interfering with discussion. Follow moderator requests. Take complaints to the proper forum.
  • If you wish to contribute in any significant way then make very certain that you are contributing constructively by studying up on the topic. Become adept at taking into account all evidence instead of just the portion that you understand or that fits your views. If there are parts of a discussion you don't understand then stay away from them. Avoid putting yourself in positions where you have to ask your opponents to find your evidence or make your arguments for you.
  • In your rebuttals, address what people actually say instead of just inventing your own interpretation, as you did here by interpreting "skirting around" as meaning "keep out". I can back this up with a very long list of points from the What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? thread that you failed to respond to if you think it would help you better understand what maintaining the thread of a discussion and carrying on a meaningful debate entails.
Along the lines of that last point, I wish you would give some thought to my chess player analogy. I likened your poor performance in the science forums to that of a beginning chess player whose poor performance against an experienced player was due to the fact that he was a beginner, and not because the experienced player was engaged in any dishonorable activity. One of the significant reasons for your poor performance in the science forums is that you rarely address any of the significant points from other people's messages, and here once again you provide a prime example. Defending yourself against the charge that you are too much a neophyte in science to contribute constructively means challenging my chess player analogy. I keep telling you the reason I don't want you in the science forums is because you don't know what you're talking about, but instead of defending yourself against that charge you keep charging me with biased and dishonest behavior. When are you going to respond to my stated reasons for not wanting you in the science forums, namely that you don't have any idea what you're talking about but post copiously anyway?
Hope this is clear enough for you. Remember, you're the one that keeps replying in ways that require responding with increasingly explicit details.
If you decide to reply then please respond to something I actually said while being careful to make sure you've arrived at an interpretation at least somewhat close to what I actually meant.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2006 8:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2006 2:41 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2006 10:00 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 104 of 302 (361172)
11-03-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rob
11-03-2006 4:05 PM


Hi Rob,
I haven't the time to read the thread in question (whichever one it is, I see you've posted in three threads today), but let me very briefly address just this part of your message:
Rob writes:
We cannot talk about science... especially in terms of whether or not scientists are lying, without getting into the dialog about morality itself.
I assume we're talking about of the threads in which you're participating in [forum=-11], and neither is about dishonest scientists or morality. Please feel free to open a new thread on the topic.
Lying scientists happens to be one of those topics that is so general that it has to be restricted to threads designated specifically for that topic. The reason for this is that someone could enter literally any thread in the science forums and argue that science is wrong because scientists are liars, and it is such a volatile claim that it would immediately derail the thread from its intended topic.
The equivalent could be done in the social/religious forums, where someone could enter any thread and argue that Christianity is wrong because Christians are liars, and for the same reason, that it would very likely derail the thread from its topic, arguing this position would be limited to threads designated for precisely that topic.
Don't know if that's the main issue, but if it is, then propose a thread for discussing lying scientists.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 4:05 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 11-03-2006 4:56 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 117 of 302 (361432)
11-04-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rob
11-03-2006 10:43 PM


Re: Not a debate thread
Hi Rob,
I lack the time to give this the attention it deserves, so you're going to have to make this easy for me. First, you didn't respond to my Message 104. If I was way off target then that's fine, no reply needed.
Second, please identify by link the offending message or messages and by quote the specific part of the message or messages, and indicate which forum guideline is being violated or which forum guideline is being erroneously noted as being in violation in each case. That will help us moderators address the moderation issues you're trying to raise here.
Edited by Admin, : Minor tweaks and spelling.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 10:43 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 11-04-2006 10:39 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 120 of 302 (361493)
11-04-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rob
11-04-2006 10:39 AM


Re: Not a debate thread
Rob, focus! I, too, have little time. If you have moderation issues then this is the place to raise them in a clear and understandable fashion. If you don't wish to raise moderation issues at this time then please stop posting to this thread.
There may a misunderstanding here. While many people have a fine old time here, including myself, EvC Forum isn't a fun, games and nonsense site. If you're interesting in exploring issues related to the creation/evolution debate in a systematic, orderly and scientific manner then please join the fray and have a blast. One request, though. If you want to structure rebuttals as sermons then please stay out of the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 11-04-2006 10:39 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Rob, posted 11-04-2006 3:11 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 140 of 302 (361952)
11-05-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by AdminNWR
11-05-2006 2:59 PM


Re: Too-long lines in Peppered Moths thread
Problem fixed, a
 wasn't closed properly, the leading "/" was missing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by AdminNWR, posted 11-05-2006 2:59 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nwr, posted 11-05-2006 4:51 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 162 of 302 (362259)
11-06-2006 8:44 PM


The 11th Guideline
This isn't a comment on anything recent, I haven't reviewed the relevant thread. It's just that since the topic of apologies has come up, I think that if we ever decide to add an 11th guideline, I'm going to put in a vote for "No demanding apologies."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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


Message 226 of 302 (367433)
12-02-2006 9:47 AM


EvC Forum Future Directions
I just posted the Message 19, and it felt important to me to make some additional comments related to site activity.
It must be kept in mind that activity levels can be subject to fluctuations unrelated to anything the site is doing, but I am nonetheless heartened to see the resumption of increases in site activity. As you'll see, activity levels continued to pick up in November, but that's not what I want to talk about.
November was a busy month in other ways, too. Early November saw the departure of Faith over philosophical differences, and with her Iano. Late November witnessed a major blow-up over yet other philosophical differences and resulted in the departure of Jar, Nwr, Omni and Ringo. All these people made significant contributions to EvC Forum and will be dearly missed, indeed, are already dearly missed.
If the increase in activity level continues it must be understood that this in no way indicates that those who left were wrong and made this a better place by leaving. What it tells us is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. My own interpretation is that internal tensions created by legitimate differences over policy were having a negative impact. The people who left could probably go off and create their own successful site, perhaps even more successful than this one. But it simply wasn't possible for two opposing philosophical positions on the best way to approach the creation/evolution debate to exist at a single site.
If I were to try to characterize those differences I would say that it is one of elitist versus populist. The word elitist usually carries negative connotations, but honesty and fairness requires that I characterize my philosophical position on the debate using terms that opponents to my approach would use: elitist. My approach is elitist.
But naturally I'm going to characterize elitist in the most positive terms possible. By elitist I do not mean exclusive. By elitist I mean that I want to promote excellence in debate. That doesn't mean that everyone who comes here has to be an excellent debater. But it does mean that you must strive to do your best, and that means continual improvement. No human being has perfect knowledge or understanding, not Einstein, not Ghandi, not us. If EvC Forum isn't changing you then it is time to move on. If you've been here a year and haven't changed your understanding or approach on at least some things then you don't belong here. This applies to those from both sides of the debate.
The tensions here at EvC Forum derived from opposing populist and elitist forces. To me the populist approach involved too large an element of suffering fools gladly. Being elitist does not mean excluding fools, but it does mean excluding those who are saying the same things today that they were saying last year and the year before. I'll say it again: if the debate isn't changing you, then you probably don't belong here.
One obvious question is that if I think the debate should change you, then how has it changed me? I probably seem fairly inflexible in viewpoint, so doesn't my resistance to change exclude me by application of my own standard?
In my years at EvC Forum I have learned a great deal. Most of it has been on scientific matters, like information theory, genetics, reproduction, the history of biology (I now know far more about Haeckel than I ever wanted to know), thermodynamics, and cosmology. And I think I continue to learn in these areas, as my current dialog with Cavediver indicates. Over the years I have been wrong time and time again, and so clearly I have changed a great deal, because now when I am wrong it is about completely different things.
Some of what I have learned is about people. For example, I've learned that you can't correct someone by hurting their feelings. I'm still learning this lesson.
And some of what I've learned is about how to keep discussion constructive and rewarding for the participants. Sometimes this means removing individuals from the discussion for the betterment of all involved. And sometimes it means learning that you're walking a fine line and that it is easy to make mistakes while moderating.
So let us move forward to make EvC Forum an elitist site in the best sense of the word in that the site is made up of the elite, those who have only the highest goals in mind in wanting only to understand and be understood.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2006 11:35 AM Admin has replied
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 12-04-2006 2:07 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 232 by Brian, posted 12-04-2006 2:38 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 228 of 302 (367466)
12-02-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by NosyNed
12-02-2006 11:35 AM


Re: EvC Forum Future Directions
Done. Your return is a welcome surprise.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2006 11:35 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 239 of 302 (367941)
12-06-2006 11:25 AM


More Insights on the Recent Fracas
In my earlier Message 226 I talked about tensions that existed here concerning requirements for participation. I don't believe I was aware of it while it was happening, but the past couple years have seen a gradual decline in standards. There were a few very visible members who I very much wanted to permanently suspend, but when this was discussed in the admin forum it was argued that it was important that we give these people a voice in order to highlight that such attitudes were out there.
My reply was always that it wasn't the position I objected to, but the unconstructive style of participation. The Internet doesn't need EvC Forum to highlight the fact that there are people out there who are stubborn and ignorant irrationalists. I think the general Internet community is already well aware of this. And giving a voice to creationism's most irrational and abusive adherents is the opposite of being fair to creationism, because it paints it in the most negative light possible.
I relented concerning permanent suspension on most occasions, but this worked against my desires that EvC Forum be a site where constructive discussion could take place through moderation. Over time I think EvC Forum eventually passed a threshold where the small number of unconstructive participants became too great for much constructive discussion to take place, in part because of their high posting volume.
Using a courtroom analogy, in most trials the participants sit quietly at their table, contribute constructively, appropriately and according to courtroom rules, and in general let the trial proceed. But in some very few cases a participant will become so disruptive that he has to be removed in order for the trial to effectively proceed. I think the analogous thing began to happen here more and more often: threads would descend into repetitive nonsense from which no amount of moderation could save them. By not removing primary offenders, constructive discussion became impossible.
Some are lamenting the departure of the least rational and constructive members, such as Faith, Herepton and John Davison. They can still participate in the Showcase forum if they wish, where there is no moderation. Or people can discuss with them at other boards. But EvC Forum will not be playing host to those who cannot be constructive contributors to discussion. I created EvC Forum to add value to the creation/evolution debate, not to be just another discussion board where the same discussion could take place anywhere. EvC Forum is intended to be a place where discussions can take place that could not normally occur at other venues. If we're not doing that then we might as well change the name of site to "Just Another Creation/Evolution Discussion Board".
So what does constructive discussion mean? I don't want to break it down too finely, so I'll just say that in my mind it means that information is being exchanged, and people are successfully making their views understood to each other. Being constructive in discussion doesn't mean being right, but it does mean following some basic rules of decorum that we all learned in kindergarten, I don't care much for Robert Fulghum's books, but the title of his first book has always rung true to me. Being constructive means being considerate, and it means giving adequate attention to the arguments from the other side. When people who care nothing for such considerations are given free rein, then the debate becomes solely an exercise in patience and restraint for the other side. An exercise that all of us have failed at least once, and some of us many times. Though testing one's patience and restraint is one aspect of debate, the primary purpose is to discuss the topic.
My target is not just creationists, by the way. Scott Page is still the poster boy for evolutionist misbehavior. The goal of EvC Forum is balance in the sense that such misbehavior won't be tolerated from either side.
There has been some mention of the fact that creationists are sometimes given more leeway than evolutionists. Up until now, this has been true in two different ways. Creationists have been given more leeway regarding the Forum Guidelines as they affect constructive discussion. It is my hope that this form of favored treatment will come to an end.
The other way in which creationists have been given more leeway is in tolerating silly and irrational scientific arguments. Since creationists approach the debate with much less of a scientific background than the other side, I believe that leeway in this regard should continue.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Nighttrain, posted 12-06-2006 8:31 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 270 of 302 (373365)
01-01-2007 10:06 AM


A few words on Dr Adequate, Randman and Showcase
Members who are unwilling or unable to follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator requests are restricted to the Showcase forum. Regular members who request permission to debate with showcased members must still follow the Forum Guidelines, even when showcased members do not.
Here's a loose analogy with the monkey cage at the zoo. I am by no means likening Showcase to a monkey cage, nor am I likening showcased members to monkeys. I'm using this analogy because of how well it fits, which will become apparent.
When you enter the monkey cage you are cautioned that the monkeys may throw things at you, including unpleasant things such as feces. You are cautioned not to respond in kind. When you leave the monkey cage and stand before it, it is still possible that monkeys might throw feces at you. You must still not respond in kind.
This was the mistake that Dr Adequate made. He entered the Showcase forum to debate with Randman, and when Randman began violating the Forum Guidelines, Dr Adequate responded in kind. And when Dr Adequate left Showcase and Randman continued to violate the Forum Guidelines with Dr Adequate as the target, Dr Adequate again responded in kind. Regular members must follow the Forum Guidelines.
Regarding Randman himself, all he need do to exit Showcase is demonstrate the ability to follow the Forum Guidelines. The rules that I think he needs to pay most attention to are those regarding staying on topic, constructively moving the debate forward, and avoiding insulting behavior. Any evolutionist here could take Randman's style to any creationist board and be banned in one day.
Randman's restriction to Showcase has nothing to do with his position or his specific arguments, and everything to do with his inability to promote his position and arguments within the constraints of the Forum Guidelines. I think all evolutionists here would welcome a Randman who brought all of his assets while leaving most of his offensive baggage behind. It is a common lament among evolutionists here that there are rarely competent creationists to debate. This shouldn't come as a surprise, since creationists come to the debate out of a love for God and Bible, while evolutionists come to the debate out of a love for science, so naturally the evolutionists are far better informed. Randman is an exception in being fairly well informed, and evolutionists would love it if he could just drop all the garbage and simply discuss things.
That Randman thinks anyone disagreeing with him is dishonest wouldn't be a problem were it not for his willingness to give voice to these feelings early and often. He is often given to simple and insulting declarations that would violently change the topic if responded to. For instance, there's this from Message 134 of the A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists thread:
randman writes:
I'am sorry your feelings got hurt, but my job in life is not to service your impotence.....you feel upset by your critics arguments and have nothing factual to say in response and so decide to post a bunch of personal crap.....sorry, but you can take that elsewhere....it's not my fault your education and/or intelligence is so lacking.
And this from Message 3 of the Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers thread:
randman writes:
The fact anyone with a brain that looks into could take it seriously is astonishing. The simple fact is ID is science no matter how hard you guys try to insist and use bogus political and legal tricks and discrimination to try to silence it.
Just as Dorothy always held the power to return home, whether Randman ever emerges from Showcase is under his own control.
I should mention that better solutions than Showcase might become available at some point. No one is really pleased with Showcase, and one proposed solution that has drawn positive comments is restrictions on posting frequency. Such a feature would have application not only for those who might otherwise be suspended or restricted to Showcase, but also for those with other issues, such as posting many short content-free or off-topic posts. Anyone who reached their limit would get a message box saying something like, "Your posting privileges have been restricted to 5 messages per day. You can next post a message at 5:14 PM on Monday, January 1, 2006 (7h 14m from now)."

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Omnivorous, posted 01-01-2007 11:14 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