Change in Moderation?

Budikka is still a member. That he doesn't show up on the membership list is a bug that is already on the bug list. I've known about this bug for a while now, but it's been tough to track down because every time someone new joins, the member left off the list often changes. For example, for a while this past winter Jet was missing from the member list. The nature of the bug implies that there's always a few members missing from the list, but there's no way no know which members unless someone happens to notice. This should be a simple bug to fix, and I may be able to give it some attention during my convalescence.Most of Budikka's posts violate the guidelines. He was warned in Message 38 of the Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand thread. That it was a post to Brad that was his next violation was mere coincidence.Budikka's posting privileges will be restored if he persuades me via email to Admin that he will follow the forum guidelines in the future. I know this approach represents a change from the enforcement procedures published in the current guidelines, but I think some experimentation is called for. The history of the 24-hour suspension, and even the 1-week suspension, is that it is a fairly ineffective enforcement measure with a very high level of recidivism.SLPx is another member who is on the edge of a similar suspension. I fully identify with SLPx's complaint that he used to construct detailed and temperant responses that were for the most part ignored or not understood, but that doesn't justify his behavior. Many of the exchanges between Fred Williams and SLPx and between Peter Borger and SLPx and to a lesser extent between Salty and SLPx were 90% complaints about each other and for that reason impossible to follow, and that's where tolerance of this type of behavior leads.Several have expressed concerns about tolerance of Salty's behavior. While I have no evidence to go on other than his posts, I'm convinced he's an energetic but senile old man who still has the agressively defensive posture of an academic but no longer possesses any of his former analytical gifts. In other words, the reason I'm not coming down harder on him is that I believe he's already operating at the outer limits of his competence. I understand the frustration that develops when Salty refuses to concede any point, but that he is losing every point is self-evident to anyone with even just rudimentary analytical skills. He's incapable of constructing any scientific arguments where the points are related and support one another, and the majority of his posts are simple repetitions. Who cares whether Salty admits he's wrong. That's he wrong is obvious to anyone qualified to have an opinion. In fact, the real danger to evolution that I see from Salty is the possibility that he'll bring other members down to his level and make it easier for convinced Creationists to conclude there's really very little difference between Creationist and evolutionist academics.Hope this information is helpful.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi, Quetzal!The board's ban list doesn't permit comments, so with no info about the member ID of who was actually banned (banning is by more objective criteria than member ID, though still far from perfect) we lost track and eventually just deleted the whole list. In other words, had we needed to unban someone, we wouldn't have known which item on the list to remove.The Suspensions and Bannings thread is intended to give administrators a place to track this information, and also provides a place where the information can be made public, which we think is important.------------------
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator

Good argument! I've temporarily closed the Evolution of "Light" thread. When it reopens later today I will hopefully have caught the attention of Wise, and perhaps he'll reengage more constructively. But even more importantly, I would like to request that those engaging in dialogue with Wise recognize that responding in kind isn't helpful, and so I'm asking that they respond with more understanding and helpfulness while trying to avoid being condescending. It's a lot to ask, I know, but I'm sure you guys are up to it!------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

If you're wondering about the temporary suspension of posting privileges, it was due to concern about issues related to rule 3 of the forum guidelines (respect for others) combined with noticing that the situation was worsening, and that moderator requests were having no effect.I would like to thank DNAunion for so quickly getting on track and for not responding to attempts by others to reintroduce old history (as in posts from yesterday ).------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Hi, MessenjaH!One of the items on the enhancements list calls for allowing members to change their IDs, but this feature isn't yet planned for implementation. In the meantime, since the Forum Guidelines prohibit registering as more than one ID the only way to change IDs is to send a request to Admin requesting that the old ID be suspended.This approach has the disadvantage that you can no longer search for all messages from a member who has changed his ID, since the system has no automatic way of knowing what the other ID or IDs were. In the meantime I prefer to minimize the number of messages that get "orphaned" when someone switches to a new ID, and suspending the IDs while a member makes his choice is how I do this.For the record, here's the copy of the email I sent to Iron Man/prophecyexclaimed. I thought it was just mundane administrative stuff, but people can decide for themselves if they think this was mishandled: Your brother sent email earlier this afternoon expressing a preference for the Iron Man ID, and I have enabled posting privileges for that ID. I don't normally update the Suspensions and Bannings thread for administrative procedures like this.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I hope Creationist members and lurkers who suspect Creationists are not being given a fair shake here will take note of V-Bird's experience . He began participation here by promoting, let us call them, unorthodox views within physics. Questions were met with more cryptic scientific-sounding explanations, but also with criticism for being obtuse or ignorant, and later with refusals to explain further. Requests for references were put off or ignored. In less than a week he has been restricted from participation in the main topic forums, leaving him primarily with Free For All for his contributions.Note that it wasn't his views that caused the restrictions, but the way he dealt with discussion. The Forum Guidelines try to encourage constructive debate, and obscurantist or obfuscative approaches are discouraged. The actual precipitating event behind the restrictions was the "I'll do things my way, thank you" response to board administration, but it was his actions in debate that raised concerns.I call this to Creationists attention because V-Bird, who is definitely not a Creationist, has exhibited behavior identical to many Creationists who find themselves tangling with board administration. The Forum Guidelines are not suitable for framing just so we can admire them from afar. They are there for a reason, and they're there for everyone. Just remember that if you're permitted to respond, for example, "I think I've explained this just about enough to you pig-headed individuals who refuse to understand," then others can respond the same way to you. We try to discourage anyone from taking that approach here.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Abby, I *did* take a close look at that thread a few days ago attempting to make sense of the discussion. There was kind of too much to make any deterministic assessment. It looked like you were claiming that while you had no countervailing evidence at this point in time, that didn't mean DU could be considered correct since all the evidence isn't in. I agree with DU that yours is a weak stance, but disagree that it means he has "won".As to DU "targetting" you, and as to the specific misrepresentation by cut-n-pasting from posts referring to different things, this is nothing to worry about. DU is well understood by most here to be unable to deal with agreement. He goes to much trouble to express his views in ways that look wrong in order to trap people into challenging something they actually agree with. That's why so many at first thought he was a Creationist. When cornered he usually ceases equivocating and makes a clear statement, but this is rare event.I agree with Moose. Ignore him.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Because if I have to restrict WillowTree's posting privileges, I don't want him to be able to say that others were also not following the Forum Guidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

After jousting with WillowTree and Robert Byers for far too long, I pose this question:Should moderators step in and restrict a member's posting privileges just because he's clueless? I realize clueless isn't a very precise term, but the problem is that there's no single diagnosis, so I wanted a broad term. If there's a common element I think it would be that they have no conception of how to support their argument with evidence. These people apparently believe that the fact that they said it, or that somebody somewhere said it, is enough. And with only this much to go on they drive everyone crazy for hundreds of messages.I enter into these ridiculous dialogues under the delusion that patiently explaining things will, over time, gradually get the point across. I for some reason believe that someone's irrational ramblings will eventually become rational and reasoned. Why I believe this I have no idea, because I've been doing this for decades and should know better.I'm not really interested in EvC Forum becoming a haven for the rationally challenged, and I hope to install some changes in the board software that will link a member's privileges to the quality of their contributions, but I'm also very interested in what current members think about discussions with the clueless. Would members feel slighted if such discussions became less available here?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You've given me something to think about for a new feature. I wonder if having a "Summing Up Mode" for threads would be helpful. The way it would work is, after a moderator puts a thread in Summing Up Mode, everyone who has already contributed to the thread gets only one more message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No one said you were lying. If you reread Message 273, you'll see where I identify the fact that you regard thesis and dissertation as distinct terms with different meanings as a source of confusion. I implied no such thing. I was clarifying for Moose in terms that both he and I understand what I thought was the nature of your post. I suggest you not work so hard to detect slights.You should be rightfully proud of the fine paper you produced. It was only the fact that you described it as a dissertation that resulted in confusion and attempts to identify what it really was. In academia here in the states one doesn't often hear the term dissertation applied to anything but a PhD. Bachelor's thesis and Master's thesis, sure (though many aren't happy with this usage), but never a Bachelor's disseration or Master's dissertation. Thus, it is less than obvious that your description of your paper as "a first class dissertation that I submitted as part of my Cambridge degree" is a Master's thesis. Perhaps "first class" is a term Cambridge uses for the Master's program? Anyway, we didn't know what it was, and that is why I described for Moose my opinion that it wasn't really a dissertation, which implies original research, but was more a survey of current thinking on neotony in human evolution. The nature of the forums is pretty clearly laid out in the registration agreement, which also includes a link to the Forum Guidelines. But you didn't cause much complaint here. Your long post is an extremely minor issue, just normal normal day-to-day business. Rest assured, no one thinks you were lying.I'm posting this under my Admin account, but I remain...

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Buzsaw,Thank you for bringing this issue to the appropriate place.It wouldn't be appropriate to turn this thread into a discussion of thermodynamics. I'll confine myself to commenting on the process.I understand that you do not agree that there are issues with your comprehension. Perhaps this view is incorrect and it is really everyone else that isn't comprehending. But this board places a high value on constructive dialogue, and so moderators have to step in when a thread swings off-topic to instead discuss your inability to engage a subject constructively. This has happened so often that I wouldn't even venture to guess the number of times.As I said elsewhere, since you refuse to learn from others, and since you won't learn on your own, and since you will bog debate down interminably insisting that your comments make sense, moderators have no choice but to administer admonishments and/or limit your participation.I think it would be very helpful if you would address a question I've raised several times. Why do you have this passion to participate authoritatively in discussions of topics about which you know almost nothing?I can offer you no relief, though other moderators may have other opinions or ideas. My suggestion to you remains unchanged. Learn first by reading books or on-line articles, then participate. And I'll add a new suggestion. When someone tells you you're not making sense, try to get to the bottom of what doesn't make sense. Engage people in a dialogue about it . Definitely do not go into your standard defense mode of protesting ad infinitum that you were making perfect sense and that we're all just a gang of evolutionists trying to shut you up because we cannot refute your arguments. That particular objection makes no sense anyway, given that all your posts reside here unchanged and undeleted. If your arguments were really as effective as you seem to believe, wouldn't we just delete them and ban you? If it were really our desire to silence Creationists, aren't we being particularly dunderheaded strategically? Won't you please at least consider that we really don't have such an agenda, and that we really and truly perceive your posts on science topics as reflecting fundamental misunderstandings and lack of knowledge?I know it's your style to respond immediately, but I suggest you instead think about this for a while. There may be more of merit in what I'm saying than you initially believe, especially since I don't think I'm saying anything that many others do not agree with.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Buzz,While your requests for elucidation and clarification seem reasonable, we must be mindful of history. You've been here a long time, and after many, many attempts to engage you we've all found it impossible. The dialogue inevitably bogs down amongst your innumerable and determined protestations that what you said made sense. A sure sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect something different to happen, so I won't be traveling such paths with you anymore.I'm afraid you must sleep in the bed you have made yourself. If you don't like it, I suggest you begin work on a different one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As I just said, we have traveled this path before and gotten nowhere. Before engaging in such an exercise I would need to be somehow persuaded that it would be different this time.You do not actually need my help to improve your fortunes here, for it is well within your power to change things. The next time you find yourself writing, "Just show me where I'm wrong," or "What I wrote was actually correct," or anything along these lines (hopefully you can recognize the pattern by now), try and catch yourself and seek some alternative approach. As I said earlier, when threads shift from the main topic to instead address whether you know what you're talking about, then we'll be limiting participation through privilege modification or closing down the thread as appropriate. All you need do is recognize the danger signs before such topic shifts occur.I haven't gotten any measure of other's opinions, but my own opinion about the quality of posts here since the suspension of WillowTree, Kendemyer, John Paul and others is that it is way up. Time and effort that previously had been exerted trying to bring rationality to their threads is now being spent on productive discussion. Each moderator runs his own show (within the moderator guidelines), but I'm encouraging the moderator crew to be proactive in combating nonsense threads and irrational discussions.The reason this approach is important is because bad debate pushes out and replaces good debate. Combined with the simple fact that few can resist the temptation of correcting irrationality and nonsense (some, like James Randi and Michael Shermer, make a career of it), nonsense threads quickly suck up much time that would otherwise be spent productively.If you'd like to take another stab at it let me know and I'll reopen your God/thermo thread. If it helps, let me describe what I found the biggest problem in your approach. There are other legitimate perspectives, I'm sure, but for me the biggest problem was that you were trying to bring together the highly quantitative science of thermodynamics with the completely unknown and unknowable nature of God. You then began assigning scientific axioms to the nature of God (e.g., he has infinite energy) with no evidential support, and so the journey into Alice-in-Wonderland and Mad Hatter science was begun.That being said, I do think it would be a fascinating discussion (but not in your God/thermo thread) to speculate what would be the implications on the universe if a God of certain proposed qualities (including infinite energy) actually existed. You *can* legitimately ask the question whether a God of infinite energy could reside within our universe given physical laws as we currently understand them. But you can't simply declare that a God of infinite energy resides within our universe.If you do want your God/thermo thread reopened, I think it would be best to keep the focus tightly on the 2nd law and the nature of the energy flow between Jesus and the woman. This gathered the most attention, and it seems the most concrete and easily discussed.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director