Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 305 (383847)
02-09-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 10:33 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
I've addressed all of your arguments. You are just running to the mods to gain advantage in the debate.
For example, the fact that consensus by scientists does not mean that the consensus is accurate as I showed by the fact that over time, scientific consensus changes.
That's not dodging your argument but rather rebutting it, despite your insistence to the contrary.
Also, here is a good article on Hindu beliefs, something you may want to read. Note: you offered no substantiation for your claims that Hindus do not believe in a Creator/God. Hindus themselves say they do.
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_10/msg00227.html
Note to admin: not trying to break silence here and not commenting on this point on the moderation, but I was concerned I'd lose this link if I focused on work and came back to this later. It's fairly informative and non-inflammatory.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 11:48 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 32 of 305 (383848)
02-09-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Admin
02-09-2007 11:25 AM


Re: for the record
OK....guess it's too late for silence, except from here on out, which I will do concerning this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 02-09-2007 11:25 AM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 305 (383853)
02-09-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
02-09-2007 11:32 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
I've addressed all of your arguments.
Well, no. Your assertion was that religion universally asserted one Creator God. This was rebutted with several examples of well-known, widely practiced religions that:
1) Believed in multiple deities, each with a hand in the creation of the world; or
2) Believed that the world was eternal and therefore not created.
Your response to this was to repeat that religions universally asserted one Creator God (as well as to argue that even amongst those religions, there's dissent and a lack of consensus about those positions, which proves my point). That doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It does constitute a violation of forum guideline 4:
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
For example, the fact that consensus by scientists does not mean that the consensus is accurate as I showed by the fact that over time, scientific consensus changes.
I don't know what argument you think that rebuts, since I've never asserted that the scientific consensus represents ultimate truth, and it certainly doesn't support your contention that all religions universally assert one Creator God.
Since it's not relevant to any argument currently under discussion, it is a smokescreen, and as a form of misrepresentation that's off-topic that violates forum rules 2 and 8.
Repeating assertions without responding to rebuttals, going off-topic, and misrepresenting your opponents are all violations of the forum guidelines - and notably, ones that you've accused others of in the past. This isn't an attempt to hoist you on your own petard; it's an attempt to force you to understand that I have no interest in playing with you under showcase rules, and debates that you choose to engage with me in other forums are going to be held to the real, fair rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:32 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:54 AM crashfrog has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 34 of 305 (383855)
02-09-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
Crash, this may not be the place per admin requests, but you made claims Hindus do not believe in a Creator/God, right?
Hindus say that they do.
http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_10/msg00227.html
You didn't back up any of your claims, but merely repeated them. I offer this link to correct and inform your opinion on Hinduism better so that we can have a fruitful discussion about that aspect of your claims. Hindus do believe in God, and it is central to Hinduism, but keep in mind, Hinduism is accomadating of a wide area of beliefs, even contradictory beliefs. They do believe God creates reality, but there is a lot of nuance in understanding various schools of Hindu thought. If you hear something about a Hindu school of thought saying the world is eternal, that doesn't really mean they don't think God creates the world, as you surmise. Maybe we can discuss this later on a different thread or the BookNook thread?
Unfortunately though, you tried and succeeded in cutting the discussion off in this area and just went back to insisting your claims were correct
On the point about consensus, you are arguing that rational, scientific inquiry leads one to be an atheist, and so are claiming science is an appropiate means to decide if God is real.
Dawkins makes another point that I've never seen anybody rebut - if you're a person who's committed to rational inquiry in their lives and not just in their day jobs as scientists, it's impossible for you to be anything but an atheist. That's 100% true, as near as I can tell. I'm not an atheist because I want to be; I'm an atheist because, rationally, that's what's true about the universe.
You go on to make the claim that scientific consensus verifies the superiority of science over religion in this area. So you are claiming scientific consensus means accuracy in this area.
Perhaps you didn't realize what I was rebutting, but my point on scientific concensus changing is to show that consensus does not mean accuracy, as you are claiming. This is especially so when consensus is based on an area of science with a severe lack of technology. Technology is the tool of science and is both an enabling and limiting factor for science.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 11:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 12:07 PM randman has not replied
 Message 36 by AdminWounded, posted 02-09-2007 12:25 PM randman has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 305 (383858)
02-09-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
02-09-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
Crash, this may not be the place per admin requests, but you made claims Hindus do not believe in a Creator/God, right?
This is not the place to continue that debate, and this statement misrepresents my position.
You know what I said, Randman, and if you don't, you can go back and read it. Misrepresenting me in this forum doesn't help your case, and while it certainly wasn't my intent to have you suspended from the Book Nook - as message 27 of mine proves - I see that it was entirely deserved.
You go on to make the claim that scientific consensus verifies the superiority of science over religion in this area.
I made no such claim.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:54 AM randman has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 305 (383867)
02-09-2007 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by randman
02-09-2007 11:54 AM


Re: Request for Moderation
While this sounds like an interesting discussion it certainly isn't a suitable one for this thread. Do you think the two of you could conceivably be civil enough to each other to make it the substance of a 'great debate'?
This would obviate Crash's objection to debating in the Showcase forum and perhaps with just the two of you the exchange might not heat up quite so quickly
If the two of you would like to continue this discussion with closer observation then maybe we could arrange this. If not then shut up about it and stop cluttering up this thread.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 11:54 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 2:53 PM AdminWounded has not replied
 Message 38 by randman, posted 02-09-2007 3:43 PM AdminWounded has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 305 (383930)
02-09-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AdminWounded
02-09-2007 12:25 PM


Re: Request for Moderation
Do you think the two of you could conceivably be civil enough to each other to make it the substance of a 'great debate'?
I'm certain that Randman won't be able to. At this point, from his behavior, I have no interest in a great debate with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AdminWounded, posted 02-09-2007 12:25 PM AdminWounded has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 305 (383945)
02-09-2007 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by AdminWounded
02-09-2007 12:25 PM


Re: Request for Moderation
adminwk, I was civil actually on the thread despite being treated to gems like:
realize that you and Herp are scared to death to read this book.
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.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by AdminWounded, posted 02-09-2007 12:25 PM AdminWounded has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 02-09-2007 8:56 PM randman has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
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

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 305 (384087)
02-10-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
02-09-2007 8:56 PM


Re: Request for Moderation
I disagreed with removing your permissions from the Book Nook forum, but I found no support among other moderators.
Not surprising considering the percentage of partisan advocates for the evo side within the moderator camp. If you want to say I was overly combative or provocative several pages back from the suppossed reason for banning me and crash's complaint, fine. What's clear is that Crash's complaint was unjustified as I had answered and was answering all of his points, contrary to his claims, and he, on the other hand, was not doing the same.
But an evo appealing to a mod to help them in debate has a long history here as well, and it's not surprising but par for the course, for crash, to go on in the thread to argue against my stance in his remarks, even mentioning my name and making snide comments to boot towards Ray, despite he and nosy's actions insuring I cannot answer back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 02-09-2007 8:56 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Admin, posted 02-10-2007 10:32 AM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
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

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 42 of 305 (384190)
02-10-2007 1:48 PM


"The Chosen Few"
EvC is an interesting forum. I think it may be one the best on issues concerning science, philosophy, society, religion, etc. I especially like the quality of most writers here. In fact Ringo and Quetzal have helped to clarify and correct my thinking on several issues. You don’t get away with very much careless or unpopular thinking around here . UNLESS you happen to be a member of the Chosen Few.
May I ask respectfully, How are the Chosen Few chosen? Do you have to be a member of a special clique or pass a certain personality test to be one? And how are the forum Admins selected? Furthermore, what criteria are used to admit members into the Showcase forum?
A case in point: Admin Wounded. What qualifies this individual for administration status? And why was he admitted into the Showcase forum? I have argued with Wounded King on several threads (see, for example, “The origin of new alleles” and “Random mutations shot down on this site,” both under the Biological Evolution forum), and I have observed that he relies more on forceful opinionation than on objective reasoning to deal with the issues at hand. Furthermore, I’ve noticed from my experience with him this he seldom adheres to rules 4 and 5 of the Forum Guidelines:
quote:
4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
I have asked WK several times to provide links and references in support of his opinions. But instead of doing that he has issued more opinions and accused me of “dragging down the standards of scholarship.” Was he given Admin status as a guardian of “the standards of scholarship”?
Having said all that, I still enjoy Wounded King's posts, and I respect him as a scientist.
Percy seems to be top dog (or cat) around here. Does Percy rule over all Admin decisions? How does the system work, really? I don’t think the system is wrong at all; I just want to know if this forum regards itself as being autocratic, democratic, or somewhere in between. Personally, I like this forum for whatever it is. I just don’t know for sure exactly WHAT it is in terms of power brokerage.
I feel as though I could get whacked with the red negative sign for simply asking these questions. (Stalin used to have the intellectuals shot for doing about the same thing.) So go ahead and whack me if you need to. I’ll get over it.
”Hoot Mon

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 02-10-2007 2:39 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 02-10-2007 2:42 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2007 2:52 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 02-12-2007 2:07 AM Fosdick has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 43 of 305 (384205)
02-10-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
02-10-2007 1:48 PM


Re: "The Chosen Few"
You don’t get away with very much careless or unpopular thinking around here . UNLESS you happen to be a member of the Chosen Few.
In the first place, I would argue that there is no such animal on this site. No one, and I mean NO ONE, gets a free pass. If you don't believe me, dig around a bit and see if you can find the lengthy (and for me, heartbreaking) symbiosis thread where WK, for instance, obliterated a long-cherished misapprehension on my part. Now THAT was painful.
As to how Admins are chosen, it's mostly a concensus decision by other admins. Usually someone who has a long history of good, well-argued posts (from either side) is asked to participate. Sometimes virtually blackmailed into it (which was the case with me - ask Moose about it sometime). Beyond that, as far as I can tell, there's no special criteria except for a latent masochistic desire to be berated continuously for decisions people don't agree with.
As to your complain concerning WK, my suggestion would be to break that out into a separate post, provide links to the specific messages you feel are germane, and then one of the other admins can take a look. As a participant in that thread, it is sort of inappropriate for me to also moderate it. However, as far as that goes, I honestly didn't see anything from him that was actionable - he appeared to be discussing your reference mostly, which is perfectly legitimate. However, I may have missed something.
The Showcase Forum was designed as a venue for true problem posters - those who, from personality or other reasons have over a long period shown that they are either incapable of accepting moderator requests OR are incapable of civil discourse, or both. The very existence of Showcase is, in my opinion, problematic. However, it's one of Percy's pet projects. To participate in Showcase, all you need is permission. To be relegated to Showcase, however, is a concensus decision (usually after long and occasionally acrimonious discussion) among admins.
On a final note, Percy is indeed top dog here. It's his site, he did most of the programming, he foots the bills, and the site is his dream. On the other hand, I've never seen him use his infinite cosmic powers to squelch anything by anyone as long as the forum guidelines aren't violated - or even a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Hope this answers your questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 02-10-2007 1:48 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-10-2007 11:20 PM Quetzal has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
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

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 305 (384213)
02-10-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
02-10-2007 1:48 PM


Re: "The Chosen Few"
Percy seems to be top dog (or cat) around here.
Even Percy has been suspended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 02-10-2007 1:48 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024