Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 171 of 305 (398084)
04-29-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rob
04-28-2007 6:30 PM


Re: ESG
Hi Rob,
Let me try making the point another way.
Rob writes:
Perhaps we could have a 'Percy and Rob only' thread on the issue of Information. Maybe HootMon could join us. Or mike the wiz...
I went to an automotive site and claimed that people could save a lot of money by putting water in their gas tank instead of gasoline. All I got was a lot of rudeness and ridicule, and when I challenged people to debate they just laughed at me or ignored me. They kept claiming I knew nothing about internal combustion engines, which is ridiculous. When I quoted Romans 5:3 they said I was off-topic. When I told them they were arrogant they said I was becoming personal. That they're all conspiring to silence my idea is evidence of its validity.
Sound familiar?
I really enjoy discussing information theory, but your history here indicates that your contributions would consist of Bible quotes, preaching, denigration of others, and ignoring what others say. Information theory would never actually get discussed. My suggestion stands that you should learn a little about information theory, just so you can make accurate criticisms. I don't believe it is within my power, or anyone's power but His, to force you to learn something you don't want to. The willingness to do so has to come from within you.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 6:30 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 10:57 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 174 of 305 (398134)
04-29-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
04-29-2007 10:57 AM


Re: ESG
Let's see how accurate what I said was:
Percy: I really enjoy discussing information theory, but your history here indicates that your contributions would consist of Bible quotes, preaching,...
Rob: It reminds me of the Pharisees and their mock trial of Christ. Please show all of us where anything I (or Jesus) has said that is incorrect.
Percy: ...denigration of others,...
Rob: It is easy for you to wax eloquent... here in the safety of your own creation. So sing to your choir Percy. Pass out the awards to your army. I for one, am thoroughly unimpressed.
Percy: ...and ignoring what others say.
Rob:
The concern is that if we promoted your poorly formulated topic proposal that it would quickly deteriorate into the same hash of preaching, Bible quotes, denigration and topic-drift as other threads in which you've participated, and just as you've done in the message I'm replying to.
EvC Forum already has a set of Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you joined. If you submit a topic proposal that follows the Forum Guidelines, which you can do by modifying your proposal in line with the provided feedback, then it will be promoted. It's as simple as that.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 10:57 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 5:44 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 305 (398199)
04-29-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Rob
04-29-2007 5:44 PM


Re: ESG
Hi Rob,
I understand you're unhappy with the non-promotion of your recent proposals, and I'm trying to help you get them promoted. But you've registered your dissatisfaction in a couple places where it is off-topic, and we don't seem to be finding any common ground here in this thread, so it's time to bring discussion to a close. Here's the bottom line.
We're talking about a topic proposal. If you submit a topic proposal that is in accord with the Forum Guidelines and adheres to normal standards of clarity and presentation, it will be promoted. Normally one would improve an unsatisfactory topic proposal by applying the provided feedback, but if you choose not to take that approach then I'm afraid you have only two remaining options: 1) find a more sympathetic moderator - AdminBuzsaw and AdminPhat are possibilities; 2) move on.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 5:44 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Rob, posted 05-01-2007 1:44 AM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 242 of 305 (405155)
06-11-2007 4:45 PM


Calling a Spade a Spade
RAZD just began a thread in the Coffee House (Lies, Falsehoods and Misrepresentations) about my recent requests to avoid characterizing statements or positions as lies, or people as liars, and I'm replying here.
RAZD writes:
Percy writes:
I'm not having much luck encouraging people to avoid inflammatory characterizations, which includes characterizing something as a lie or a person as a liar. To show something or someone incorrect only requires providing the evidence. To show something a lie or someone a liar requires information that is usually unavailable. Here at EvC Forum I encourage people to assume someone sincerely believes what they're saying unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
This word is generally proscribed when referring to another poster on this forum, but I don't think this means we can't say that, for instance, Clinton lied about his relationship with "that woman." This is an accepted fact.
Yes it is. The judge ruled that Clinton's sworn testimony was false and perjurious and held Clinton in contempt of court. He was disbarred in Arkansas and later by the Supreme Court. I think that whenever you have this level of evidence about someone's lack of truthfulness, it is very safe to call him a liar.
What exactly is a lie, and what are the boundaries of protocol to use on this forum: why is "lie" worse than "falsehood"?
When used as a synonym for lie, "falsehood" is no better than "lie".
The difference seems to center around the intent to deceive.
It depends upon which definition of "falsehood" you're using. One very commonly used definition is as a synonym for "lie". When used in this way there is no difference between "falsehood" and "lie". There is another definition of "falsehood" which means simply being wrong, and in that case the difference is, as you've noted, intent.
But I have no idea why you've hitched your horse to an argument about the difference between "lie" and "falsehood". I never used the word falsehood, and I recommend that anyone using the word make clear from context which sense of the word they mean.
I understand how difficult it is to accept as possible the depth of delusion necessary for some of the misstatements of facts we often hear from primary creationist sources. Unable to fathom how someone could actually believe such impossible or contradictory things, the tendency is to conclude they must be lying. I think this grossly underestimates the power of the God delusion.
I recently posted links at Message 44 to a debate between Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of Way of the Master versus Brian Sapient and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad. This video is well worth watching because it makes very clear the power this delusion holds. Cameron and Comfort had agreed to provide scientific evidence supporting the existence of God without referring to God, faith or the Bible. They based their opening arguments upon God, faith and the Bible, and when it was pointed out that they had argued religiously instead of scientifically they denied it. The moderator tried to push this point three times, evidently believing they must be misunderstanding something, and each time they denied they had used religious arguments. Their arguments denying they'd argued religiously would never make any sense to people like you and me, but I'm sure they make perfect sense to the faithful.
One comes away from this portion of the debate just shaking one's head. Clearly Cameron and Comfort sincerely believed they hadn't argued religiously, and they argued passionately that they hadn't. And yet they clearly had. This is the God delusion operating right out there in the open for all to see and marvel at. But despite how wrong they were, Cameron and Comfort were not lying.
Ken Ham's "museum" is certainly designed and built with the intention to convince people that the world is 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood. Both of these are known falsehoods on the level of Clinton's lie.
How so on the level of Clinton's lie? Has Ken Ham provided false and perjurious testimony in court? Has a judge ruled that he knowingly provided false information while under oath? Has his license to practice law been suspended anywhere?
I'm not saying that this sets the bar for finding someone a liar, just that you'd be extremely hard put to find someone who had been found as unambiguously a liar as Clinton. Just as you'd be hard put to find someone who has been revealed as unambiguously an idiot as Bush.
So go ahead and call someone a liar or call something a lie. Just support it with unambiguous evidence first.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by jar, posted 06-11-2007 5:27 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2007 5:57 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2007 6:08 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 251 of 305 (405508)
06-13-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by molbiogirl
06-12-2007 8:23 PM


Re: admins
Could you provide a link so I can see the text you quoted in context?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by molbiogirl, posted 06-12-2007 8:23 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by AdminPD, posted 06-13-2007 10:45 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 253 of 305 (405527)
06-13-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by AdminPD
06-13-2007 10:45 AM


Re: admins
Okay, thanks. My perspective is a little different, but if you have helpful feedback for Molbiogirl it sounds like she'd appreciate it. For myself, I liked that she outlined the issues she had problems with, picked one to start with, stated one of the YEC positions on that issue, then rebutted it with info from TalkOrigins.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by AdminPD, posted 06-13-2007 10:45 AM AdminPD has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 262 of 305 (407243)
06-25-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by PaulK
06-25-2007 2:01 AM


Re: Moderation Request
This is not the place for you and Buzsaw to hash this out. Apparently no moderator decided to intervene, so conclude from that what you will.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2007 2:01 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2007 11:47 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 264 of 305 (407427)
06-26-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Buzsaw
06-25-2007 11:47 PM


Re: Moderation Request
I can't speak for the other moderators, but the way I see it is that those whose debate style, unintentionally or not, uses a pattern of frustrating behavior to provoke guideline violations from others should get little sympathy. PaulK was in violation of the Forum Guidelines, but enforcement of the Forum Guidelines should not be blind. You're not some angel, and expecting others to exhibit inhuman self-control when addressing your posts doesn't seem reasonable to me. I saw RAZD's recent testy responses to Simple in the same way.
The thread had just begun, and PaulK in Message 14 was actually complaining about your past discussion history, which often involves unsupported points and not responding in any satisfactory way to rebuttal. I've experienced this myself with you on a number of occasions and in lengthy exchanges. I recall requesting time and again that you address the actually points and give some indication that you understood, or were even aware of, the arguments from the other side, all for naught. I can generate no enthusiasm within myself for honoring your request to sanction someone for noting this.
There's no point in responding with your usual, "Percy, my friend, my behavior is no worse than what we see from evolutionists here all the time." I suggest that if the moderation here isn't to your liking that you could participate elsewhere on the Internet, such as PhysicsOrg that you tried a couple months ago. Another possibility would be to spend some time recruiting creationist moderators who are familiar with science.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2007 11:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2007 12:41 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 266 of 305 (407614)
06-27-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Buzsaw
06-27-2007 12:41 AM


Re: Moderation Request
I rarely visit other boards so I'm short on suggestions. One possibility would be to send emails to prominent scientifically minded creationists and ask them if they could propose anyone. Names that come to mind are Behe and Baumgardner because they understand that Biblical evidence and arguments don't belong in scientific discussions.
Any suggested creationists would have to first participate as normal members for a while before a decision about moderatorship could be made.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2007 12:41 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2007 11:00 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 269 of 305 (407732)
06-28-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Buzsaw
06-27-2007 11:00 PM


Re: Moderation Request
Buzsaw writes:
It is very doubtful that folks like Behe and Baumgardner participate in any forum debates.
Please read again what I actually suggested:
Percy writes:
One possibility would be to send emails to prominent scientifically minded creationists and ask them if they could propose anyone. Names that come to mind are Behe and Baumgardner...
In case this still isn't clear, let me explain:
  1. Open an email tool.
  2. Enter the email addresses of Behe and Baumgardner in the "To" field.
  3. Introduce yourself, and describe how EvC Forum is an creation/evolution discussion site that is seeking balance by recruiting moderators from both sides of the issue.
  4. Ask them if they could suggest anyone who might be interested in moderating at EvC Forum.
  5. Click on "send".
Edited by Admin, : Change author.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2007 11:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Buzsaw, posted 06-28-2007 1:54 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 279 by Buzsaw, posted 06-28-2007 10:47 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 301 of 305 (410311)
07-14-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by berberry
07-14-2007 8:42 AM


To Berberry,
Hi Berberry,
Not everyone is going to see what is so obvious to you, I'm sure you understand that. Sometimes those people who don't see your point of view will be persons in positions of considerable responsibility, or if not then at least moderators at EvC Forum.
This is not to agree with you or with AdminPD, but just to share with you my own feeling that enough people understand your point that it will not get lost or smothered, even if it doesn't happen to get adequately expressed in any particular individual thread. But it is incumbent upon me to also point out that EvC Forum is not a haven for the easily offended, and that being offended, or even being the target of a blatant Forum Guidelines violation, doesn't excuse one from the Forum Guidelines.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by berberry, posted 07-14-2007 8:42 AM berberry 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