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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 305 (381228)
01-30-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
01-30-2007 12:43 AM


Re: rob
RAZD writes:
ah, suspected as much when he dropped like a rock from spinoza.
Is the little
icon not helpful? If you hover over it a popup provides some details.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2007 12:43 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2007 5:55 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 13 of 305 (383212)
02-07-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
02-07-2007 12:25 PM


Re: Dr A.
I'll consider it, but to be frank I am still deeply disturbed by this. After Randman requested Dr A. be removed from Showcase, I spoke up in his defense. Randman responded that he still wanted Dr A. removed because he was confident Dr A. would continue the misbehavior, and I again spoke up for Dr A. Then Dr A. posted and proved Randman - Randman, of all people! - absolutely correct.
I put my trust in Dr A. to pay due consideration to the board's reputation, the board's Forum Guidelines, and to my own wishes as director. He seriously let me down.
The Internet can be both a fun and serious place, and I want EvC Forum to share both these qualities, but it is definitely not a playground for those on a lark who think, "Hey, this isn't the real world, I can do as I please!" The Forum Guidelines are not a rigid set of rules. There's plenty of room for creativity, imagination and brilliance, but if you're going to stretch the limits of the Forum Guidelines then I highly recommend that those qualities be in full display, because repeated doltish declarations of "That's a lie" is not the level of discourse we're seeking.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 02-07-2007 12:25 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 02-07-2007 4:26 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 139 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2007 6:30 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 30 of 305 (383842)
02-09-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
02-09-2007 11:05 AM


Re: for the record
I understand your unhappiness, and I'm not sure at this point whether you've been treated fairly, so perhaps you could refrain from such ironic faux pas as preemptive commission of the violations you say you expect of your opponents until this is discussed among moderators. In other words, silence might be a better strategy at this point.
What I would like to see from the participants in the Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' thread, indeed in all threads, is to work hard at figuring out how to constructively move the discussion forward. In the exchanges between you and Crash, Crash has to ask himself what further evidence and argument he can bring against your point that world religion has a consensus about God, and you have to ask yourself what further evidence and argument you can bring in support of that point. This requires that one be able to tell the difference between providing additional evidence and argument versus merely reasserting a point in different words.
While at this point I'm not certain that the removal of your permissions in the [forum=-16] forum was warranted, neither am I sure it is unwarranted. One doesn't wait to see the gunslinger go for his gun before giving him wide berth, and so a member's history is a factor in considering whether action is warranted.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:05 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:34 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 39 of 305 (384051)
02-09-2007 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
02-09-2007 3:43 PM


Re: Request for Moderation
randman writes:
But I did not respond in kind, or at least I don't recall doing so. I suppose I should be silent and am not doing too good at that, but really, I didn't violate the forum guidelines on the thread in question, imo.
It does seem a bit odd for a primary participant in a book discussion thread to have not read or be reading the book.
As to following the Forum Guidelines, you weren't too bad, but you weren't too good, and as I keep reminding you, you have a long history. Your very first post in the thread consisted of a vague unsupported accusation against Dawkins ("very telling"?), and a specific unsupported charge of lack of objectivity against "many evos".
With no supporting argument you called Dawkins a loon who showed no signs of a great mind, and you accused him of near hypocrisy. About the "evo camp" you kept repeating your charges of lack of objectivity, of arbitrariness, and of rejection of logic.
I disagreed with removing your permissions from the Book Nook forum, but I found no support among other moderators. I think that in the future you'll find it far easier for moderators to support you if you take an approach that is constructive rather than adversarial. I think all the moderators are pretty much tired of the way so much of your participation consists of the same unsupported criticisms over and over again.
In many of your discussions I can only assume that within your own mind you come to believe fairly early on that you have overwhelmingly made your case. And so as other people are just getting into the discussion, you've already made up your mind that you've carried the day, and at that point you change over to spending most of your time questioning people's objectivity and honesty and declaring that "I already showed you were wrong" instead of discussing the topic. This ever repeated pattern just gets tiresome after a while.
Getting to the heart of the matter, it was observing too many creation/evolution discussions that contained far more heat than light that caused me to create this board. It is still the reason this board exists. Your style of discussion brings far more heat than light, and leads too many threads into dissension, confusion and anarchy, the opposite of my original dream. I want to see people say, "Let's get to the bottom of this," and I don't want to see things like, "You wouldn't say that if you were intellectually honest."
Discussions are an opportunity to test your ideas in the public arena, but you treat them more like a soapbox from which, after a couple flourishes of discussion as a matter of formality, you repeatedly assert your conclusions and opinions, including opinions about those you're discussing with ("you're dodging", "evos aren't objective", etc.). You have to start considering the possibility that those who disagree with you might still be honest, thinking and informed people.
You have one of the most clear and vivid grasps of the Creationist perspective that we've ever seen here, and people are very eager to test their ideas against yours. I'm still seeking a format where that can happen here with those who are unable or unwilling to conform themselves to the constructive approach to discussion sought here. The sideshow forums where lengthy discussions weren't really expected to happen, like Book Nook and Links and Information, are proving to be places where you and Ray remind us why you were given Showcase status in the first place.
And so ends yet another lengthy post from me to you about what you must demonstrate in order to return to normal membership. Good luck!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 3:43 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 1:02 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 41 of 305 (384152)
02-10-2007 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
02-10-2007 1:02 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
We could discuss the details all day, the facts of the matter are these, and if you take them to heart you can use them to your considerable advantage:
  • You know that I have no qualms against enforcing the Forum Guidelines against anyone from either side of the discussion. For example, Dr A. is still not back, despite what I thought were truly well argued and heartfelt requests for his early return. I *do* have a vision for this site whose means for attainment is the Forum Guidelines, and those who by their actions are saying to me "screw your Forum Guidelines and your vision" will see appropriate action taken, whether they're on my "side" or not.
    This is because in this debate I don't really feel I have a "side". Evolution is not my "side", it's just the theory I accept and advocate. I'm really on the side of the type of discussion that brings understanding, and I'm the enemy, the incredibly strong enemy, of its opposite.
  • So believe it or not, it isn't your point of view that gets you into trouble, it's your attitude. Evolutionists are not a bunch of dishonest liar frauds who must be dragged kicking and screaming into admissions of what they know in their hearts is actually true, but until you accept that evolutionists hold their position just as honestly as you do yours you'll have difficulty focusing on just dispassionately discussing the issues.
So if you want to continue to be the voice of dissension, derision and denouncement, if you want to continue to respond to every perceived slight as if it were the ultimate in underhandedness and hypocrisy, then you'll retain Showcase status. If you can somehow become a voice for reason, openness and understanding then you'll regain normal membership status.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 1:02 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 44 of 305 (384206)
02-10-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
02-10-2007 1:48 PM


Re: "The Chosen Few"
Hi Hoot Mon,
I've granted you access to the Showcase forum. Keep in mind that regular members such as yourself are expected to follow the Forum Guidelines even if the Showcased members do not.
Regarding me, I own the place.
Regarding the power hierarchy, all moderators have equal power. Their primary responsibility is to keep discussion focused, on-topic and constructive by enforcing the Forum Guidelines, and they also promote topic proposals. Generally they try to avoid stepping on each other toes so that only one moderator is intervening in a thread at a time. We have five or six active evolutionist moderators and two creationist moderators.
Regarding Wounded King, if you're talking about the Random mutations shot down on this site. thread then I think you have no basis upon which to base a complaint, especially given the way you opened participation in that thread:
Hoot Mon in Message 15 of the Random Mutation thread writes:
If you crowded TD, Dan Carroll, and crashfrog into one room you will have cornered three quarters of the world’s obtuse opinionation. If you were to posit that catsup is better on your hotdog than mustard they would beat you up for it and try to steal your lunch. So forget ”em.
Making too frequent refuge to those types of contributions usually results in a short suspension, and in my judgment you walked right up to the line several times in that thread.
But if you'd like to complain about something specific in that or another thread, this is the thread to do it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 02-10-2007 1:48 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Fosdick, posted 02-10-2007 3:06 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 02-12-2007 2:27 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 52 of 305 (384564)
02-12-2007 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taz
02-12-2007 2:27 AM


Re: "The Chosen Few"
Tazmanian Devil writes:
Hang on, let me get this straight. So, if Adminmoose decides to rally support from the other admins, they could permanently ban you and take over the forum?
Oh, sure, and this is something that actually happened to the owner of a once popular but now defunct site. His on-line name was Optional, and he died a few years ago. The story is fascinating, it's recorded somewhere on the net, maybe someone has a link.
Optional regained control of his site by "running a script". Perhaps it was a MySQL script, which is the same database engine we use here.
If insurrection were ever to be committed here, unlikely since I'm so beloved, I'd have no trouble reentering the board since we're not using commercial bulletin board software. I wrote the software myself, I'm intimately familiar with the database structure since I designed it, and I'd have no trouble logging onto the server and restoring my permissions in the database while at the same time changing the aliases of the plotters to names like "Doofus" and "Dunce".
So you guys plotting in the back room there, give it up, it won't work!
AbE: Here's a couple threads I found about the troubles at CreationWeb:
Edited by Admin, : Added information.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 02-12-2007 2:27 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 55 of 305 (384598)
02-12-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jazzns
02-12-2007 11:29 AM


Re: randman v.s. Admin
I have no objection to Randman's participation in a GD.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jazzns, posted 02-12-2007 11:29 AM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 58 of 305 (384620)
02-12-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
02-12-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Rule 5
Hi Hoot Mon,
It would help if you would provide links to posts rather than just thread names and numbers. The issue you raise is from your Message 61:
Hoot Mon writes:
How can you issue such self-contradictiory remarks? Check out your message 61 of the "Random mutations shot down on this site" (Biological Evolutin forum):
Wounded King writes:
Hoot Mon writes:
And, btw, why haven't YOU posted some relevant literature to defend your position on drift v. selection?
Eh? That isn't how it works. You make a contentious claim about what the paper meant and I asked you to substantiate it, the relevant literature to support my position is the same paper because what we are disagreeing on is what that paper says. You say it says something about drift causing speciation and I say that it doesn't except in as much as it estimates a time of divergence for the two species.
That's one time where I asked you for references in support of your argument concerning selection vs. drift. I never got them. I did however get a lot of OPINIONS from you...
Requesting references makes no sense in this case because the point under contention was whether you were misinterpreting the paper, and you later conceded that you had misinterpreted the paper, so even just raising this issue also makes no sense. You made so many errors and committed so many miscues in that thread then I can't imagine why you would even want to bring it up again. In that thread you declared that that paper said that drift was a significant component of speciation when it said no such thing. You confused speciation and microevolution. In your very first post you were already engaged in ad hominems, and you kept it up with a steady stream of "Time for you to head on down to the library" and "Such tripe!" and "You're lame" and so forth. When Wounded King cited information from the article that he could not possibly have had unless he had a copy of the article before him, you responded very weirdly in your Message 44 by telling him to bother fetching the article. When people pointed out your errors you dismissed it as ankle biting, and in Message 59 you engaged in a significant bit of dissembling by trying to pretend you'd actually been arguing for some other point than your original point about the paper providing evidence of drift-caused speciation. Your performance in that thread was extremely poor both from a scientific and a debate standpoint.
This all was already readily apparent, so unless you have new information or a new angle I don't think this is worth any more moderator time or attention.
Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 02-12-2007 12:05 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Fosdick, posted 02-12-2007 1:47 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 63 of 305 (385629)
02-16-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taz
02-16-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Hang `em high
Tazmanian Devil writes:
The only old timer who hasn't lost it is none other than Percy.
I think it's more cyclical than a general decline for most of us. Stick around, I'll lose it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 02-16-2007 1:03 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 99 of 305 (388679)
03-07-2007 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
03-07-2007 3:06 AM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
Just to keep the record straight, Buzsaw was not "driven off". After being given permission to post in a couple science threads at a time he made a series of bizarre statements in the moderation thread that were widely challenged. AdminBuzsaw responded by suspending his Buzsaw account.
Buzsaw's struggles occur when he participates in discussions on topics with which he has little to no familiarity or understanding. Unable or unwilling to understand the material, and unable or unwilling to concede any point, he consistently brings constructive discussion in science threads to a halt. Any remaining doubts about Buzsaw's lack of comprehension should have been removed when he responded in all seriousness to a word-salad nonsense message that I posted just to make this point.
There is no shame or dishonor in not knowing something or being mistaken. I've said many times that we are all human and we all make mistakes. It is a common mistake to think you understand something correctly when your understanding is actually flawed. Buzsaw struggles here because he understands little, is unable to recognize what he doesn't understand and so can never correct his misunderstandings, and this causes a problem because he posts often.
Instead of leaving I wish Buzsaw would work to correct his lack of knowledge and understanding. People often tell Buz that he should read more, and Buz answers that he does read, a lot, but what people actually mean is that he must read *and* understand. I've attempted to commiserate with Buz on several occasions, explaining to him that I can't understand differential equations no matter how much I read, but that at least I don't go getting into arguments about differential equations with people who do understand them. In other words, at least I know what I don't understand. Even when I'm surprised to learn there's something I thought I understand that I don't, such as occurred recently concerning my mistaken belief that you could convert back and forth between linear and angular momentum, I'm able to correct my misunderstanding. Buz hasn't corrected a single misunderstanding that I can recall.
I'm not trying to hold myself up as a shining example. I'm just the example I'm most familiar with. I'm well aware that I'm human and possess all the weaknesses people are heir to. But despite all our imperfections we're still able, by and large, to be polite to one another and to take the trouble to understand one another. Buzsaw usually achieves the former but rarely the latter, and all his troubles stem from that.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 03-07-2007 3:06 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 03-07-2007 11:24 AM Admin has replied
 Message 104 by nator, posted 03-07-2007 6:25 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 100 of 305 (388684)
03-07-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by AdminBuzsaw
03-05-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Good Day. May God Bless All
AdminBuzsaw writes:
I have registered into a larger board, PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums where I will check out as to whether my MO is acceptable. My first overview of heir evc forum there indicates that it will be but time will tell.
Just spent 15 minutes over at http://forum.physorg.com/, and it seems pretty clear you'll get the same response there that you did here, for example this is typical: "After reading and scrutinizing that, see if you can actually contribute something, anything, with meaning, reasoning and applicability to the topic, for a change."
You see, Buz, EvC Forum members are not specially recruited by me to reflect my viewpoint. They're just a random group of self-selected people, and pretty much all who approach the debate from a science perspective are going to react to your views in a similar manner.
PhysOrg is no different. As a newbie member you might be granted some soft treatment for a while, but it won't be long before they'll be critisizing you for the same things we did. Your problems will not away by leaving here but will follow you around because you are the problem, not EvC Forum. This is just a science site, and PhysOrg is just a science site, and science people will be the same no matter where you go.
The only thing that might be different about PhysOrg is that it has less moderation. If it is my moderation that you chiefly have a problem with then you may well be much happier over there, but the problems will be no different.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 03-05-2007 4:04 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

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


Message 102 of 305 (388713)
03-07-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
03-07-2007 11:24 AM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
Just presenting clarifying information:
randman writes:
the ignorance displayed on the topic of QM by most here, except a few, and they were reticient to aknowledge the opinion of many quantum physicists, was never censured. You yourself paraded a ton of misinformation without batting an eye.
This reflects only your opinion, not something that has been established to anyone's but your own satisfaction.
If Buzz has made mistakes, I can't see where he has been less informed than the average evo poster here.
Once again, this reflects only your opinion. Buzsaw's comprehension issues have been amply demonstrated to most people's satisfaction.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 03-07-2007 11:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 03-08-2007 1:50 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 106 of 305 (388814)
03-07-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brian
03-07-2007 6:29 PM


Re: AdminBuz's action just more whining
Brian somewhere sometime writes:
Jesus, Buzsaw, what the hell is wrong with you? You haven't learned a damn thing in years of people trying to get things through your thick, religion-addled skull of yours! When people try to help you get better, all you do is get pissy and whiny and play the "poor, picked on me" game. Why don't you just shut up, becasue you're clearly incapable of keeping your posts from being composed of complete and utter drivel!!
I missed this first time around, but seeing it creates a good opportunity to make an important point. Rants like this are often cited as evidence that moderation here is unfair. What such criticism fails to note is that the rants are provoked. It's like criticizing drivers for yelling, blowing their horns and flipping the bird at someone who insists on walking down the middle of the highway everyday during rush hour, and can't be dissuaded from doing this by any among of haranguing.
This is what discussions with Buzsaw feel like after a while. People cannot be blamed for reacting with frank frustration to insatiable ignorance and blithe obliviousness.
I regret having to be so blunt, but the goal of maintaining civility does not mean we allow ourselves to be abused by those who have some bizarre interpretation of the rules. Returning to the highway analogy, someone can't walk down the middle of the highway and insist that no one criticize him because it's impolite. Clear communication requires that sheer idiocy be called sheer idiocy, and the police are responsible for persuading the individual to either begin using the sidewalk or, if he insists on using the highway, to get in a car, and if he refuses all suggestions then action must be taken so that traffic can flow.
So continuing the analogy, when I told Buzsaw he could participate in a couple science threads it was equivalent to saying we'd tolerate a little middle-of-the-highway walking. And his brief return to participation was fine. What caused his discouragement and self-imposed exile was arguing with bystanders who had no reticence telling him what an idiot he was being. And he was. Moderators really can't come to the defense of someone so determined to not have a clue.
Edited by Admin, : Spelling.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 03-07-2007 6:29 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 03-08-2007 1:40 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 110 by Brian, posted 03-08-2007 5:16 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 111 by AdminPD, posted 03-08-2007 7:38 AM Admin has not replied

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


Message 166 of 305 (397678)
04-27-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Adminnemooseus
04-27-2007 4:31 AM


Re: ESG
A future enhancement will allow members to begin threads where they can control participation. There will be two approaches they can choose from. In both approaches they will create a list of member names. In one approach, only members on the list can participate. In the other approach, everyone except members on the list can participate. The thread originator and moderators can always participate whether they're on the list or not.
This feature would not be enabled in every forum. Site administrators would decide which forums have this feature enabled.
There's no schedule at this time for this feature.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-27-2007 4:31 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Nighttrain, posted 04-27-2007 8:22 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 169 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 6:30 PM Admin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024