General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

You have misunderstood.The issue is why are we permanently restricted?This is why the restrictions are not as claimed, and are instantly explained when we point out that our captors are Darwinists. Only Darwinists claim this.Your comment is a predictable insult explained by your Darwinian worldview and lacks any substance, and it is a defense of third-world censorship practices. Remember, this is the Internet, and not Iran.Ray

It always amazes me that the evos here will say stuff like "everyone says" and not accept that the fact is only all the evos say, and often not all of them, and that practically all serious critics of evo models that visit this site say the exact same thing. The site is completely one-sided in moderation to the point serious discussion is effectively prohibited by the admins here.Yet, we don't hear the evos admitting that "everyone says" that the site is too biased to generate real discussion, and that any critic of evolution that makes an effective argument is either hounded or shouted off the site, and if too rude to graciously leave and responds to such obtuseness of evos, then he or she will eventually be banned.

In your case Ray it is due to your tendency to go off topic, to insult other members and generally break the forum rules. Time and again. You are given a voice here despite all this. You are even given your own corner where you can be the moderator of your own threads.There are several creationist websites that I was a member of where I was respectful and polite but have been IP banned from since I dared disagree.It is typical that someone who breaks the rules is still given privelages to remain in the community (indeed, gets more privelages than others in some areas). It is typical of liberal thinking, imo. Not all evolutionists are Darwinists - but that's beside the point. You are not a captor, you are a guest on this website. Those that behave respectfully are treated as respected guests. Those that don't get to play in the sandbox outside until they metaphorically grow up or go away.You have been a member here for over 3 years, yet you are still posting 2,780 posts later. Might I make a suggestion? Either find a board where there moderators are neither creationists nor evolutionists or find a board with no moderation (EvolutionIsDead seems quiet on moderation), or go to a creationist board. And remember that your usage of this board is at 'Darwinists' expense. That is Percy is paying his own money towards letting you moan about his and others biases. You have no rights to free speech here and silencing you here is not illegal in any country. You have been given a voice despite your constant, repeated and frequent insults, off topic posts and generally disruptive behaviour.If you don't think that is fair, perhaps the moderators should be fair and enact a complete ban as we have in other cases? Why am I restricted? This is the 21st Century contains a comment I made about this last month when you complained about your restrictions then. There are links to some posts of yours there.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

I find this (and especially the emboldened parts) remarkable!The general humanist attitude of this forum has served it very well in forging a common place where what are extremely divisive subjects can be discussed. That humanist attitude includes the notion that everybody has the right to free speech. Now, I understand that Ray being permanently banned from these forums would not impact his freedom of speech in the sense that he could continue to post at alternative forums, but it would impact the humanist attitude of the EvC forum in showing that our reaction to a dissenting, annoying, maddening voice is to shut it up.I do not know much about the background of this argument. But I must say that if I were to be confined to a "special" forum described as a "sandbox" as though I were a child, I would not post here again. Being restricted in that way is humiliating in a real sense. Not humiliating in the practical sense of our lives in the mundane world, but humiliating for the online personae we all adopt on this forum.I agree with Ray that a permanent restriction to the "sandbox" forum is unfair and does not reflect well on the "liberal thinking" of the moderators.mickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I do not know much about the background of this argument. But I must say that if I were to be confined to a "special" forum described as a "sandbox" as though I were a child, I would not post here again. Being restricted in that way is humiliating in a real sense. Not humiliating in the practical sense of our lives in the mundane world, but humiliating for the online personae we all adopt on this forum.

​

I agree with Ray that a permanent restriction to the "sandbox" forum is unfair and does not reflect well on the "liberal thinking" of the moderators.

---

So what's the alternative? either banning or allowing him to rant and disrupt other threads? How would you handle it?

I would hope that Ray might not be banned, and others could simply ignore any posts he makes that they consider irrelevant. Nobody is forcing anybody to devote pages of text to debating Ray if they don't want to.I personally have never found the disruption of threads to be a problem except for when both parties decide they are going to have a long debate on the forum, which might be more suited to the chat room.MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

That's a reply about how the world should be - sadly it's not related to how the world is. It's ok saying "no is forced to debate Ray", but if you start a debate and it's dragged off course - at the very least, you get into the "please stop" "will a moderator stop this" etc.

Sorry, while you were writing your reply I was editing my post to add a final paragraph:

quote:

---

I personally have never found the disruption of threads to be a problem except for when both parties decide they are going to have a long debate on the forum, which might be more suited to the chat room.

---

Instead of asking for a moderator to step in, just invite the opponent to a converstaion in the coffee house or the chat room.Basically, behave online the same way you behave in real life. When a bore sits next to you on the bus, you can talk to him and wait for your next stop, or you can tell him you'd rather not speak. What you can't do is ask for a moderator to ban him from the bus. Why shouldn't the same rule apply online?PS. I don't want to talk to you any more because you're boring me.Edited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I agree with Ray that a permanent restriction to the "sandbox" forum is unfair and does not reflect well on the "liberal thinking" of the moderators.

---

I disagree. Ray is probably happier there where he is far less subject to moderation and can freely indulge his habit of abuisng those who disagree with him. Unless you mean that it is unfair in his favour - which is not something Ray could justly complain about.Randman is also happier there for the same reasons and because he can - and has - effectively banned those who get the better of him in argument.

Percy has made it clear that he considers EvC elitist, and wants to constantly raise the bar. It is not that Ray's voice is dissenting or annoying, it is that he draws threads off topic and then insults those that are of differing opinion to him.Free speech issues in US law of course only apply to Congress, not private citizens. And speech is still moderated even then. No incitement to violence/terror and no shouting fire in crowded theatres etc.If the moderator team here is Congress then we avoid silencing those that simply disagree with us - eg NJ (we even get them in congress!). However we take steps to prevent some members disrupting the service when they are being disrespectful or drawing things off topic.In this case 'Congress' has allowed Ray to set up his own 'nation' within this 'nation' where he makes up the moderation procedures, but prevented him from {entering theatres and yelling fire} or {running into a school and screaming obscenities} (or going off topic and being disrespectful in main debate threads). We still allow him to petition the 'Government' for a redress of grievances (see this thread). Ray, randman et al have the option of ceasing posting. Before the Showcase they did not have that option (it was forced upon them). Now they have the choice of posting or not. This gives them an opportunity to demonstrate a change in ability to follow the rules they were once breaking. This shows a belief in the ability of people to become productive citizens (which is humanism at its best!) Some people were prepared to sacrifice productive debate to tackle randman, Ray et al. However, it would be unfair to allow those members to disrupt the debates others were having where they did not want to make that sacrifice.There is then few solutions which would be completely fair in a sense. We have effectively allowed them to have their own forum to post their views, whilst actually being banned from the main board. This is like giving prisoners with a public interest a newspaper column with which to air their controversial opinions without fear of further prosecution.We are open minded enough to entertain the idea that us evil Darwinists banned them because we know their arguments are irrefutable. Rather than censor them outright we allow them to say as much and to post their arguments for those who are interested.As Percy says, it is not a perfect system, and there may be a better one. Suggestions welcomed.

I was particularly amused by Randman's recent contention that the reason he wasn't getting any debate on his showcase threads was due to evos being too scared to debate him without the cover of moderation in his, the hypothetical evo's, favour. He doesn't seem to consider that the problem might actually be that he is effectively the moderator of those threads and has already shown a propensity for banning people.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Sure you can. Bus drivers kick off unruly passengers all the time.Anyway, this isn't a bus. It's Percy's private limo.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The thing is, as we all know, there are hundreds of discussion boards on the subjects that Ray enjoys, so why does Ray keep coming back here if the site is too evo biased?Is it the lure of the Dark Side?Brian.

quote:

---

Yet, we don't hear the evos admitting that "everyone says" that the site is too biased to generate real discussion, and that any critic of evolution that makes an effective argument is either hounded or shouted off the site, and if too rude to graciously leave and responds to such obtuseness of evos, then he or she will eventually be banned.

---

I have joined several creationist-run discussion sites and have been very careful to be polite and respectful and I have been permenantly banned from all of them. Within weeks.I was even invited to join a discussion board consisting entirely of people who were banned from one particular Creationist-run debate site!You have it so good here, randman. You have your own little corner of the internet where you are allowed to be lord and master even though you really should be permenently banned because you consistently break the forum guidelines. And yet, you whine and complain.Tell me, what Creationist-run website provides such a forum for their previously-banned Evolutionist members?

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.

---