General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

DA, you're a hair's thread away from suspension. I'll give you one more reprieve for clarification. I repeat, your charges of lying must be on the spot empirical documentation that an intentional lie was spoken.As I see it, Rand's problem with you is something like stonewalling the thread rather than moving forward as he requested. When he said you had the chance to debate and refused, it is possible that he was referring to your stonewalling which in effect meant you "refused" the chance to debate.To keep the peace it's always best to keep one's cool and allow the counterpart the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the serious charge of lying. As moderator, be advised that to me this is a serious charge which I do not regard lightly. Anyone who calls another a liar had better have empirical documentation on the spot if I see it or they will be called upon to account for their actions.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

The classic fundamentalist copout. LOLAs long as the person is so ignorant, deluded or otherwise unable to "intentionally lie" it is okay.Sorry Buz but there really are people who lie to themselves so well they actually convince themselves they are speaking truth.Usually they then find a great career as Christian Televangelists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, you know what "empirical" means. My warning stands as stated. When you accuse one of being a liar, unless imperical documentation is cited, best to allow the other the benefit of the doubt, working to keep the peace. Rand has been admonished about this in the past also so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's interesting jar, but that was my impression of you, and I was banned for essentially saying that, but somehow you think it's appropiate when it's directed towards someone that disagrees with you?

I warned you repeatedly, or did you forget, to discuss the topic and quit fouling up the thread, and you continued with needless insults and apparently failed to grasp the thread topic and so were not posting relevant information, and were derailing a thread where others more knowledgeable, imo, of the evo position seemed willing to discuss the topic. The point of the thread is to generate discussion, and since you didn't seem to want to do that, you got booted.Some here have complained about Showcase or acted like it is some sort of zoo, but on my threads, it's really about a place where some intelligent and reasonable evos can come and discuss a topic, though I admit I have posted a little bit in an inflammatory tone in exchanged with Ray in order to generate some response after the forum seemed dead.What it is not is a place where you have a right to come on there and do whatever you want because you are angry and want to insult IDers and creos when you, frankly, do not even understand their points, much less are capable, imo, of answering them.The truth is I appreciate the potential Showcase has for real discussion, and have no interest in rejoining the regular forum unless and until there are substantial changes. An example of even-handedness would have been your permanent banning for repeatedly falsely calling someone a liar. That was presumably the reason given for banning me, and yet you have merely been warned despite your infractions being far more severe on this point.But hey, it doesn't matter. On Showcase, per the rules, you come over and discuss the topic without the cover of moderation except as in the eyes of the person that invited you. I invited you back with conditions despite your incredibly childish accusations and repetive posts.Moreover, it's hard for me to think you really believe what you have stated since I have always made it known I booted you from the thread. Maybe you forgot? Clearly my remarks on you refusing to debate would have been clear, as I repeatedly told you, that you were dodging the topic and fouling up the thread.

out of curiousity, how does one empirically document someone's intentions?

---

The truth is that you would rather enjoy the illusion of power in your grubby little zoo than live by the rules of civil discourse enforced by someone else. You are delusional. This forum suffered a thousand times the calumny from you than you have recieved before you were banned, and at every turn you cried censorship. Surprise! The whiner is a bully.Also, you really are a liar and a coward, and Dr. A is not.

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

If your comments are examples of the civility and intelligence the regular forum features among the evo sect, then frankly you are the delusional one here if you think you are actually trying to have a discussion with critics of evolution.On Dr A., a grown man repetively posting childish rants on the same post, posting the exact same thing and I don't mean content, but actually a series of the exact same line and words, well, the guy has issues. It's guys like he and you that feel like calling people liars and what-not is fine, but then take offense when someone dares question your beliefs, that are delusional and need help.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Actually you received a string of temporary suspensions first. Dr Adequate receievd a temporary suspension for calling you names. If he continues to be so disrepectful despite continuous warnings he may face permanent suspensions.It'll take a long time before that will happen though - you have posted ten times more often than Dr Adequate.

Omni - you are beggining to tally up the disrespect points. I have said to you in discussion before that the 'but he really is a X' is not a defense for disrespect.If you are unable to either show everybody respect or ignore those you cannot, you should not be here. I said to you in the linked post that:

quote:

---

Calling your opponent a liar is likely to end up with you getting suspended. Simple. Effective. Even if your opponent is a liar, don't call them a liar. Show that they are wrong. Show that they are inconsistent.

---

and

quote:

---

Calling your opponent a coward is likely to end up with you getting suspended. Don't do it, its easy.

---

You went ahead and did it anyway so I'm afraid by my own standards you're going to have to take a break.

nothing like a bit of reality distortion field - Randman is a liar, he's been a liar since he turned up. He was telling porkies from the start.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

I suggest you take some time to read what I just posted, and follow the link to where I explain why it doesn't matter if randman is a liar, he is a member of this board and must be shown respect or ignored.

I just want to go on record as saying that I agree with AdminModulous's recent actions. As much as I abhor Randman's approach to "discussion", his behavior does not justify Forum Guidelines violations. When someone tresspasses on your property it doesn't suddenly make it legal for you to tresspass on their property. Those who wish to take the law into their own hands will suffer the consequences.This is reminscent of Faith, though, who always left a long trail of suspended members in her wake. Why those who have the advantages of knowledge and rationality give in so frequently to their baser instincts is beyond me.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Mod, You have proven yourself to be a reasonable man. I have had to grow myself and endure a few suspensions and even a banning by the queen.My question is... in light of your comment. And in light of the fact that I have shown jar to be inconsistent on numerous occasions... why is he allowed to continually label posts as nonsense, jabberwocky, irrelevant, etc... without 'showing' why they are such?His attacks are senseless.Here is an example of his undoing:

The discussion on sin actually begins at Message 48.While Rob never "got it", others certainly did. For example in Message 66, anastisia posted: She, and I can only hope others, actually understands the difference between "sin" and "right and wrong".Further, she also seems to understand WHY I respond as I do.In Message 71 she goes on to say: If I simply tell someone something they may or may not truly understand. But when they think it through for themselves, THEY become the owner of the information. It is something THEY understand, not simply something assumed on authority.ABE:the reply to Rob's specific whine can be found at this link where I once again explain that I say nothing about Rob's sins. Rob's sins are none of my business, and I do not address them. Rob's posts though are part of a discussion and so open to response and rebuttal. Edited by jar, : add link to post where I again try to point out the difference between sin and right and wrong.Edited by jar, : fix link to point to the beginning of the discussion on sin.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion