General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

i think it's a bad idea to write off people with extreme ideas, out of hand, and call them loons. you're absolutely right that it's not the ideas, but the attitude. we've all heard crazier ideas here, and ufo's in the bible are not exactly a new claim. (in fact, i'd love to see a decent discussion of chariots of the gods and those famous ezekiel wheels) i think i might actually have to take exception to this. my (nominated) words were partly inspired because i did attempt to engage him a serious discussion, in one of his earlier threads. when i tried to open the gates of a biblical discussion regarding assumption and interpretation, he went first for the ad hominems. not that i was particularly bothered by this; i have a very thick skin (some would say a carapace) for that sort of thing, especially when the criticism was so obviously backwards. the thread was closed because it was clear to the moderators that he was not interested in debating the topic, from his response. i forget who in particular closed it, and this is not a critique on that moderator. but i had half a heart to ask for it to be opened again. the only reason i did not was because it was also apallingly clear to me that he did not want to discuss or debate. creationism is an idea that neccessitates a person ignore a fair percentage of mainstream science, methodological naturalism, and so forth. it's not a coincidence that there is larger degree of overlap between kooks and creationists than between kooks and the general population. in some respects, creationists are kooks because they reject conventional science and rationality in favor of a minority understanding of religion. i don't intend to be derogatory -- at one point galileo was a kook too. being unusual or rejecting the standards of the times has little bearing on whether the argument is true or not.but creationists and other less-popular forms of kooks are in a sense allies because "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend." yes. if creationism were good at judging scientific merit, it wouldn't exist. creationism is simply not a scientific approach. it is an approach based on faith. testing faith is the devil's job. the thing that you have to remember is that creationism is not an organized sect, but a myriad tiny independent groups that all hold the same loose set of beliefs, and each tends to view everyone else at outsiders, especially if the beliefs of behaviors of others are markedly different. so are far more exclusionary than others (see the 1611kjv crowd).the primary moderator i saw interacting with origen was phat. phat is a creationist, and a fundamentalist christian. but he is part of the establishment here, has been known to express his doubts or side with science, and generally acts in a civil manner. somehow, this has gotten him exiled from the creationist community. creationists see things very much as "us and them." and phat is a "them" because he does not stand up and preach in every post, or because he is not a martyr, or because behaves civilly and not like a guerilla. but mostly because he is a moderator, and does not tolerate the kind of lunacy all-too-often associated with our creationist members, and because he actually demands reasoned behaviour in others. he does not simply wave them through, and pat them on the back, and tell them to keep up the good fight. so he is no longer part of the old boy's club, it seems.i think phat is the prime example of why your suggestion will not work. it's not because creationists can't make good moderators. it's that when they do, they are no longer creationists. they are part of the evil evolutionist conspiracy designed to keep creationists down.

---

the athiests are enraged because of their inability to refute?oh, wait, that's ray. sorry. perhaps. let's not run the crazies out of town, shall we guys? lets let their arguments stand or fall strictly on the merit of those arguments, and not how outrageous they sound.i'm actually kind of sad origen left. i for one was moderately interested in what he had to say. i don't think any of it was correct, but it was just a little disappointing to see his reaction to criticism. instead of defending his ideas (this is a debate, folks) he got angry, claimed martyrdom, and left.randman, the problem i see, and the reason i wrote those responses to him (re: bye) is that he seems to have misunderstood what the name of the game is. he mistook impassioned criticism for closed minds and conspiracy, instead of the vigorous testing of ideas it ideally was. maybe some were out to get him, but he read this in everything. my posts, harsh as they may have sounded, were essentially pleas to get him to actually contribute something worthwhile instead of whining and playing martyr.

---

*performs a brief tap-dance, and bows with arms open, leaning to one side.*tada.the truth of this statement, like everything else you or i have said, depends entirely on the creationists. it's not a conspiracy that we have no creationist admins here, or not even very many creationist members here. it's because they either chicken out (and become martyrs) or succeed and become excluded.if you exclude people, especially based on factors that have nothing to do with your defining belief, you're only going to limit your numbers. this is a truism, and it should be obvious. while most of the problem is really creationist attendance, acceptance of moderators who are creationists is the acid test. so far, i think they fail. yes, it doesn't help anyone's arguments. it was the behaviour, as you say, not the ideas. why are we so bad at getting creationists who can actually behave themselves? this is a real problem. they've got to exist, right? i've also noticed a lot of people in pyramid schemes. i think that as a point of observation and statistics, it's important to note that poorly educated people are more susceptible to certain kinds of religions. not to say that all fundamentalists are stupid, or that fundamentalism causes stupidity, but it seems easier for cranks and loons and people who are already out of touch with rationality to find a place in fundamentalism than highly skeptical people. evidently, they don't see it as idiocy.and exclude the people who do.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

we run into a definitional problem here. the "loons" are defining what is and what is not a creationist. we have a lot of people here who claim to be creationists, but are not according to the loons.really, it's just the loons isolating themselves into a smaller and smaller group of wannabe martyrs. you will never get a reasonable creationist on this board. not once, not ever. because it is a contradiction in terms -- when one shows reason, they are (according to the loons) not a creationist. because creationism is a position of faith. not reason. it can masquerade as science -- but the moment one of them brings up a mainstream scientific point instead of the standard creationist "let's foul up science" talking points, they've become something other than a creationist.it's the minority against the majority because this is the way the minority chooses to define themselves. they want to seen as persecuted, so it looks like they have a great evil to fight against. and when they fail, they want the excuse of supposed injustice to justify their retreat. if you can't win an argument, just pretend the rules are rigged against you. which they are -- that "demanding evidence" bit totally screws creationism, doesn't it?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

i rest my case. the lunatics run the assylum. enraged ranting caused by an inability to refute. predictable and programmed ray martinez response, might as well be canned. inability to refute. could we expect a pyramidologist and fundamentalist to say or believe anything else? ad hominems = inability to refute. more paranoid delusions and failed attempts at logic by a rabid pyramid-cultist.

---

semantic nitpicks = inability to refute. yes, but "ass" has two. enraged ranting of a paranoid pyramid cultist = inability to refute. you demand to be catered to, that creationism be given a "sweetheart pass" when it is an unscientific theological belief. we lower our standards of evidence to allow debate where no debate exists. you "run" evc because unless we condescend to your standards, we are "unfair." conspiracy theory, distortions, and martyrdom delusions = inability to refute. no, ray, i don't understand you at all.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

as per your logic, all admins on this site are "darwinist," even the creationist ones like nemesis, (formerly faith,) phat, etc. they don't count because they get along with darwinists. you define the group, and then claim bias. that was my original point -- we can never have a truly creationist admin, who is accepted as a christian by the fundamentalists members of this board unless we have nothing but creationist admins. any signs of rational discourse, agreement, or getting along with "darwinists" will be seen as invalidating their creationist status. i have, ray. i think the showcase is stupid, and i have said as much. i have also argued on behalf of every major fundamentalist member of this board when they have been banned or threatened with bans. that probably includes you, ray. it certainly includes randman, faith, and buzsaw.

---

wk, do you suppose that this might be why we have so few creationists on this board -- we have shown a propensity for banning them? granted, for entirely legitimate reasons most of the time, but they sure do not see it that way.

---

i think mod means to emphasize that posting here is a priveledge, not a right. we post at the personal cost of percy. he doesn't have to be fair -- he could ban anyone he simply feels is wasting his bandwidth. but he tries to give everyone a voice, even those that are highly disruptive.the showcase is, in part, a way to give these people a voice -- an area they can control, where they can post anything they want, and even define whom they want to debate with and whom they do not. in the outside forum, they would be held to MUCH higher standards, and have far less control. if they want to whine about what they've got, i invite them all out to play with the big boys -- and be subject to the same rules as everyone else, under the same moderation.and certainly, "shutting them up" is not the reaction. in part, this very thread is a check on that. we, the general population on the board, are a check on the administration here. i know i have influenced percy a number of times to withhold bans for creationists -- such as randman, who continues to complain. i still object to faith's ban. frankly, ray acts like a child. it's not just here -- he's one of the few members i know from other forums. his reputation preceedes him. we have very little influence on that. he's the laughing stock of talk-origins -- they mock him and attack him at every turn. almost everyone there knows his name, and his debate style, and ridicules him to point of open insults everytime he posts. to my knowledge, ray no longer posts there.would ray prefer we do that here? does he see that as open and free debate? i think i demonstrated a few posts back that when a member does make fun of or antagonize ray, the mods actually step in to protect him -- because such behaviour is uncalled for, whoever does it. the choice seems to be a little sandbox area, or letting ray and others like him turn the whole board into a sandbox. ray does not like that there are certain rules of conduct, and would continue to derail every thread he posts in. he'd continue to complain because he'd end up with closed threads, suspended, or banned, and very quickly.it's a working solution. what do you propose we do, exactly? i have my objections to it too. i think it confines debate, splitting evolutionists and creationists into two distinct groups that rarely talk to each other.

---

i see a lot of them who immediately run afoul of the admins these days. do you see any correlation, as an admin? that was one of two possible implications, i suppose. the other is that admins are more likely to ban fundies than others. either way, i certainly see them getting in trouble and get banned more.how many non-creationists are banned from the site? merely as a point of statistics?

---

i think they are, by ceationists. speaking as a former fundamentalist myself (i don't mean to be insulting), there is a deeply paranoid streak that runs through certain fundamentalist churches (most that i have been to). many really it see it "us vs. the world."any approach that is not openly in favor of anything they do can be seen as an attack. this might be the case. perhaps we are sacring off the more reasonable, level-headed fundamentalists. but i think the definitions are also against us -- any creationist who is level-headed seems to be deemed "not a christian" by more vocal and combative creationists here. i don't see a good solution -- the creationists won't be happy unless they run the board. running their own section is not good enough, it seems. i have a proposal. it's a dangerous one, but maybe it'll give some perspective. think of it like an experiment: what would happen if the board had no moderation for say a month? no pnt's, no closing topics, no reprimands, suspensions and bannings. only spam removal. would the entire thing be a sandbox, full of violent fights? would the creationists be happy? what would happen? poking with sticks. even though they are far more likely to be poked outside of the cage. it's still seen as patronizing and insulting.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

in the interests of curiosity, and total fairness and openness, is this list public? if not, can it be made so?

---

it's really, really hard to be educated and remain a creationist. panda's thumb and pharyngula posted a graph recently that shows this, statistically, but it's something we've known all along. the evidence carries evolution -- there is no scientific debate among the people that actually work with the evidence. the more exposure a person gets to the evidence (ie: the more education a person gets), the harder it becomes to remain creationist. definitional issue -- we call the people who are educated, yet disagree, loonies because they do not conform to traditional, rational scientific methods. well, most of them -- some of them are just clearly schizophrenic. won't work. as wk said, we already ignore them in showcase. but you'll notice that occasionally, a creationist will make statements about how they plan to ignore an evolutionist for such and such a reason. it's just childish, and makes things worse.

---

copy-and-paste?i mean, i realize there would have to be some admin discussion and general consent, but i think it would be good to publish it in the suspensions and bannings thread, say everytime we have to make a new one.

---

i see.let me know what the other admins think. if it's impractical or can't be done, then it can't be done i guess.

---