General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

I don't know about "invulnerable logic", but common sense tells us that just because one is disliked by the ones that one dislikes, doesn't mean that one is doing something right. The enemy of my enemy, after all, might just be a bigger asshole than my enemies. Actually the theory of evolution = "the scientifically accepted explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth as being descended with modification from a common ancestor by natural selection and random mutation."But I appreciate that accurate definitions of words are not your strong suit. If atheists hate cancer, is Arach supposed to love it?Did it ever occur to you that there might be a better way to determine what is true about the world than simply to believe the exact opposite of what the people you hate believe?

I see what Percy's trying to say, though.Sure, you and I and the evolutionists might get testy, but we also get serious - we respond to rebuttals, we substantiate arguments by elaboration instead of repetition, we present evidence.Randman doesn't. It isn't that his posts contain accusations of fraud and deceit and spurious insult, it's that that's all his posts contain.It's not what he's doing, it's what he isn't doing - responding to rebuttals, addressing counterexamples, presenting evidence, substantiating arguments by elaboration instead of repetition. All Randman is here to do is call everyone who doesn't agree with him a liar, and I can't think of a single reason why that's something that we should support. No useful discussion has ever occurred with Randman. The only useful discussion he's ever been involved in occurred in spite of Randman's best efforts.Keep him in the Showcase. We built that zoo for people like him.

Are you kidding? That's all you do over there - go running to the moderators to silence counterarguments you can't rebut.

See what I mean? Rather than providing evidence, you've simply called me a liar. In doing so, of course, you've proven me right. Again, you've completely vindicated my remarks. You've presented a useful discussion that occurred completely against your best efforts to derail it. Congratulations, I guess. And thanks for proving me right.

If accusations of falsehood are verboten, then one has to wonder how one is supposed to respond to this re-enactment of a common, yet completely surreal situation: Oops, can't say "lie" anymore, because people who tell lies are liars, and we can't allow liars to be called liars to their faces.The problem here is that it's fairly common for some people to completely misconstrue their opponent's comments by reference, or even by surreally quoting statements and then presenting a completely inaccurate interpretation. And as the discussion spirals out of control, it's fairly easy for moderation efforts to completely miss these instances. In some occasions, moderators have engaged in the exact same behavior, quoting the exact objectionable statements and then, in the very next line, denying that they had ever seen those very statements!How are we supposed to respond to these surreal exchanges? I've been suspended several times in regards to pointing out this behavior in others, and I see that Dr.A has suffered an even worse fate. Without a detailed reading, it's often difficult to detect wrong-doing, but these tactics completely derail any discussion and quickly ramp up the frustration level.What are we supposed to do, exactly? If it's obvious that a person is repeating things that they know are false - are directly misrepresenting statements right in front of them - how can there possibly be any doubt that they're being deliberately dishonest?

And when they say "right up there, in your post" which anybody can see is not true, what do you do then? They've just told you how they read them - when you say "blue", they read "yellow". Either we're forced to conclude that they're the victim of a bizarre internet worm that alters words on their computer, or they're being deliberately nonsensical. What are we supposed to do when they are playing the fool in ways I can't seem to get anyone to notice?

And what are those ways? Because apparently saying "you're being dishonest" is against the rules.

In my example, that's exactly what they did - they quoted a sentence that does not say what they said it says. I've had it happen. I've had moderators quote the very objectionable statement I had been referring to, and then claim in the very next sentence that they had never seen the statement I was referring to. (I guess they were able to cut and paste with their eyes closed?)It's these amazingly blatant examples I'm talking about, because they do happen. And it's so paradoxically impossible to get anyone to believe that it's happening. I've been suspended in the past just for trying. So I'm really curious about what we're supposed to do when it happens.

Why wasn't Dr. A showcased, instead?If they want lock lightsabers like those black and white guys from Star Trek, lock them up in the Phantom Zone together. (Take that, nerds.)

Hilarious!The exact situation I referred to, which people thought was so unlikely it could never occur, is occuring in this very thread. Thanks, Herp!

It happens a lot more often than rarely; in fact, Herpeton is doing it right now in this very thread. See his exchanges with PaulK. Self-deceit is still deceit. Just because someone won't, under any circumstances, admit to lying doesn't mean they're not lying. When somebody writes one statement in plain English and you assert a meaning that isn't even there, you're lying. Nobody reads that poorly.

I'm sure when he goes over to Terry's trainwreck of a debate site they welcome him with open arms. "Sure, Heckel and Pacitus. You're absolutely right Randman. Anything to stick to them evos."

Wha...? If you want people to have more freedom to say things in the Showcase, why are you and Rand always asking for your opponents to be evicted?You're trying to have it both ways, Herp, and it's transparently obvious and ridiculous.

Could you substantiate your assertion that Quetzal has, at any time, advocated for you to be killed?

Not good enough. Can you substantiate your assertion that Quetzal has, at any time, advocated for you to be killed? Literally put to death, as you asserted?Can you substantiate your assertion that being banned from EvC forum is the equivalent of physical death?