Change in Moderation?

Actually I don't have a problem with Admins being harder on the evolutionists. For one thing it keeps us honest. If creationists want to make fools of themselves, why stop them? All it does is make evolutionists look like the well-reasoned, calm thinkers.Anyway I think most creationists will stay out of the more technical, intra-evolutionist topics, purely from lack of familiarity with the subject. exceptions may be Salty who feels qualified to hold forth on any topic (usually with nothing more than "darwinism is dead!").But it does kind of look like BooBooCruise needs to be reigned in... he's shooting topic continuity all to heck wherever he posts. I don't think he should be suspended just yet, but maybe we could start moving his posts into appropriate forums. (Lord knows some of us haven't been helping by resonding and encouraging him. I'm particularly guilty.)

I certainly agree that salty's behavior, under normal circumstances, begs to be barred. The problem is that he's made specific comments at other boards that he's bucking for suspension here. I say let's not give him the pleasure. So long as he wishes to post here let's let him do it, because to suspend him would only confirm, at least to his mind and those like him, that we have a bias.Everytime he opens his mouth (well, types with his keyboard) he embarrases himself. And largely he sticks to a few topics. I say, let him post. I don't want to give him the satisfaction of being banned. You're definately right about that. I just wish PLG had the opportunity to post more often. I find his posts maddening (in the sense of being frustrating), but at least they're original. He's really thinking about what he's saying, not copying some Hovind website. A most worthy adversary.

Yeah, I agree with Mike - I thought that was a pretty harsh shut-down.
Honestly I don't find a Christian's passionate love of jesus any more offensive than my own flat-out statements that god doesn't exist.Now, I'm not sure I'd start a thread joking at the percieved expense of believers. So that may have been a little over the top. Nonetheless, hasn't it been established that harsh crackdowns on creationists don't bolster our forum's reputation for fairness?Furthermore a casual "I'm sure you're breaking someforum guideline" inspires about as much confidence in administrative fairness as a cop arresting me on charges of "I'm not sure but I'm sure you're breaking some law" inspires confidece in my local constabulary. Specific citations of forum guideline are more than appropriate for a shutdown of such harshness.

Re: Message 91 in "Evolution of Light" by Adminnemooseus If there's a specific forum guideline you feel I'm violating, by all means, point it out.But otherwise it feels a bit like you're picking on me simply because I post a lot. Which I realize I do.However I largely see it as my "place" here to take on those creationists who are not likely to be swayed by evidence, because their objections to evolution are not based on evidence but rather faulty logic or equivocation. Discussions with these folks rarely take the form of deep, well-researched posts, I realize, but rather quick, short messages and bantering wordplay.I make an effort to hold my tongue in discussions of a more evidental nature, though sometimes my enthusiasm gets the better of me. But even if I make a greater effort to curb my enthusiasm, what assurance do I have that you won't continue to take my large number of posts as a black mark against me? What could I possibly do in the face of so many posts that would make you think I was improving?I guess my point is, if the large number of my posts is the only thing that makes you suggest I'm a less-than-helpful member, what could I possibly do about that? I can't erase my posts.These are earnest questions. I'm genuinely curious what you think I could do to ease your objections besides a total suspension of posts while I wait for somebody else to "catch up".[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-02-2003]

For persons interested in a serious discussion of the evidence, yes. But such topics provide an opportunity for posters like Wise, who are clearly inexperienced with the rigorous style of debate practiced here, to be shown a better way to argue.Like, training wheels. People come here from all corners of the internet - from forums across a spectrum of civility. Is it really reasonable to expect a new poster to immediately take to heart a more serious style of debate? Can't one or two topic be spared for the express purpose of correcting some poster's bad critical thinking habits before they try to sit at the adults table?

We'll do our best. Perhaps it might be a good idea if you add a message to that thread that's a little clearer about what parts of Wise's behavior are so objectionable. After all we would hardly want him/her to get the impression that we object to his position, not his technique. And as the disinterested admin he/she might not immediately dismiss such suggestions as he/she might do from his/her opponents.

I had thought - hoped, perhaps - that the adminstrative attention was due to his unfortunate habit of obsessing over any percieved slight to the exclusion of substantial debate. I saw nothing truly objectionable about his stupid code brackets, but I do object to how he keeps forgetting to address the meat of arguments instead of their presentation.

Re: Iron Man's suspensionWhat exactly is the procedure for a change of username? If there isn't one, is it really fair to suspend a person for shifting to a new identity, if the purpose wasn't to circumvent a suspension?(Also how come IM's suspension didn't merit a notice on the Suspensions thread?)

Give him a little time than an hour, dude. Not everybody hangs out here full time.I seriously doubt that there's a conspiracy afoot to cover up Iron Man's suspension, if that's even what's happened.

I for one wholeheartedly agree. I propose that Syamsu only post in threads of his own creation. In return we'll all agree not to post in his threads unless we have something we know he would consider "a serious counterargument."What say ye?

At what point does "extra protection" become allowing certain creationists to run ramshackle over the forum guidelines? And why does the protection seem to extend to people who aren't creationists at all?I don't care if you have a problem with me, AM. I doubt we'll be able to approach a compromise on the issue. But if you ask me - and several others - your heavy-handed, inconstant attempts at administration are one of the leading discourages to participation these days.You want to point some fingers about the "decline" in board quality? Start by pointing one or two at the mirror.

Is that really the best we've got?I've never seen DU react to a potentially dissenting opinion with anything but an immediate declaration of victory after ridiculing the poster. If he's not going to play nice with the big kids, can't we bust him to Free for All?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2004]

What evidence do you have that that will work? JAD has said outright that he intends to rail against Darwinists rather than engage in productive discussion; there's no indication that he needs any provocation to do so. After all there was no provocation for him to return and begin posting anew.I don't understand why you think ignoring him will make him go away, after he's pledged not to leave at any cost. What else does it take to get banned here besides saying "I'm determined to break the rules and act like an ass, and there's nothing you can do about it?"This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-07-2004 04:15 PM

But he's not here to engage in conversation. He's said as much. He's here to make fun of Darwinists, not address arguments.I don't see that that's something we have a responsibility to support, or that we should wish to. Short of actually doing that, isn't an announced intention to do just that sufficient to merit action?

Well, I hope you won't. I realize that. That was the point of my post; not to be an ass, but to bring a thread to the attention of admins who I knew weren't reading it.I mean, isn't the fact that Salty's participating under two ID's now enough by itself? What does it take? By doing nothing? I still don't understand what's hard about the decision now. The Junk DNA thread was interesting. Now it's a landfill of JAD posts.