Change in Moderation?

Hi Percy,With reference to this post of Admin Jet's recent ban, in truth I find myself in the unenviable position of actually agreeing with sonnike's post #40. Not to question your moderation policies, but Jet's post that got him banned had to be the least objectionable post he's ever made on this forum. And Scott has gotten carried away. It's entirely possible there's more going on "behind the scenes" between you and Jet than I'm aware of. If so, I'd appreciate you letting us know.One of the great things about this BB all along has been the exceptionally even-handed moderation. EVCforum has become the standard by which I judge all other websites - including my sort of "home away from home" on IIDB. EVCforum has always come out head and shoulders above the rest. If there's going to be a change, I'd appreciate a heads up...[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-12-2004]

Hi Percy, Debate with the likes of PB and Salty isn't idiocy. Whereas it is understood that it's utterly impossible to change the minds of cranks, who will cling to their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overhwelming evidence, IMO that isn't the principle reason to debate them. Anyone who has waded through (or followed) any of PB's massive threads, for instance, has been exposed to an incredible amount of damn good science, because that's what's necessary to refute the spurious assertions he made. The references and explanations Mammuthus and Taz have given alone are the equivalent of a graduate course in molecular biology. As a participant in a couple of those exchanges, I also find them extraordinarily useful - I've been forced to research and read dozens of articles in topics on which I either had only a passing knowledge or shallow familiarity. Odd as it may sound, arguing with Peter Borger has been an education for me in a number of areas. Even KSC - with his Iridium Nightmare garbage - was useful in that sense. So I don't consider them a waste of time; far from it. If I did, I wouldn't bother arguing with them.As to all parties "being sincerely interested in exploring the issues", I'm not sure that this is a realistic expectation. The fundamental "evolution vs creation" debate is based on science and evidence vs superstition and faith. I have seen little reason to expect any creationist to change their position - or even be willing to entertain the possibility that they might be mistaken - TC's partial "shift to the dark side" notwithstanding. However, countering the various creationist claims and exposing their pseudoscience to the light is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. And this board in particular has done an excellent job of attracting and keeping some pretty high-caliber scientific talent. I'd rate evcforum as right up there with TO and IIDB on that score (albeit smaller).One possible solution to the dilemna would be to adopt a slightly more stringent version of the Moose strategy. If a moderator notices significant topic drift (a judgement call), then a "Topic Drift" warning by post number should be issued. If the drift continues, a second warning, and a notice that the thread will be closed in an arbitrary time period (24 hours?), advising all participants to either open a new thread or sum up their points. Then close the thread. Of course, ad homs, flames etc will be immediately deleted by a mod - with explanation (again, judgement). This avoids heavy-handed moderation with long explanations and/or suspensions (which probably do more to disrupt a topic than help it, honestly) for other than egregious flaming or insults. Topics are going to drift. It's inevitable by the nature of the medium. However, a policy of warnings followed by thread closings will probably be sufficient. Naturally, inappropriate threads (a discussion of logical positivism in the evolution forum, for instance) should be moved as soon as they are spotted.My 12 kopeks (2 cents at current exchange rates). I like the board. It's been extraordinarily interesting and educational. Thank you for hosting it. But to be honest, I'm becoming concerned over the increasingly disruptive nature of the moderator interventions.Anyway, whatever you decide we'll live with. It's your board.

Percy,I concur with my hairy proboscidean friend here. It might require a bit more moderation, but the idea has merit. And no, I have no earthly idea what "GUToB Rule #3" means. I applaud your ultimately vain attempt to clarify the infamous "theory". However, if you HAD been successful, you'd have accomplished quite a feat.

Well, I tend to agree that salty has been given a completely free pass whereas anyone else who was so consistently rude, insulting, and contentless would have been banned long ago. Unfortunately, I'm aware that there's a catch-22 sort of situation here. salty is deliberately trying to get banned, obviously, with the apparent intent of crying about it over on Terry's board and elsewhere.However, there comes a point where we start coming up on the law of diminishing returns. salty is already crying about moderation, bias etc over on Terry's board - so what's the point of allowing him to stay? Especially if the free pass is causing friction among long-term, well-respected members of this board. Zephan, irritating little so-and-so that he is, was suspended. salty - the most vitriolic, insulting, and utterly useless poster we have had on this board since I joined - is being allowed to stay. What is wrong with this picture?I think this speaks to the basic problems Mammuthus and SLPx have articulated. I'm hopeful they will correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Moose. I'm not questioning Borger's banishment (that sponge was pretty dry), nor Zephan's (although I think that had less justification). Nor am I questioning warnings/temp suspension given to Mammuthus (to whom I noted in private communication that I thought he was over the top) and/or SLPx (I've seen Scott "in action" too many times).I DO, however, feel that they both have a valid point in the case of one John Davison. It's not a question of holding the evos to "higher standards" - a desire in which I concur. It's more a case of seeing in salty a flagrant dissymetry between the stated goals and objectives of this forum and the way such goals are operationalized. From his first post - once he discovered no one was falling on the floor in awe at his brilliance - he has done nothing but flame and/or ignore others. And yet he hasn't even been warned. This obviously doesn't sit well with either Scott or Mammuthus. It doesn't sit well with me, either.Look, I still think this board has one of the best overall moderation systems/teams on the Internet. However, we seem to have a disconnect recently. Growing pains?In partial defense of Scott - I've noted his flames tend to be responses to others' provocations, unless he's bringing ancient historical baggage from another forum (which he tends to do). I don't condone it, but singling him out repeatedly as evc's poster child for evo banishment may be excessive. He CAN be pretty decent when he wants to be... As to Mammuthus, I have every confidence he'll be back after a short break and especially if someone interesting comes on board, my guess is he won't be able to resist. (A little birdy told me...) IF we can come to grips with the double-standard problem.Might I suggest a "no exceptions" policy to start with? Then we can start drawing a line where moderation is required...

Whoohoo! What a great idea! Cooption is the best policy. He can't keep kvetching about moderators if he is one... Besides, I think he'd make an outstanding moderator. Even if he doesn't agree with my definition of mutation.

Hah! You're stuck with it on your own. (Q checks the "newly discovered vertebrate" database for Porcus volans references. Nope.) Good luck!

Hey Percy,With reference to your "suspensions and banning list", didn't our old buddy ksc get permanently banned after hacking the board? The infamous "Iridium Nightmare" thread?

Oh, I dunno Percy. I think Moose's version "idiology" is quite evocative of both the threads in question...