|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
They were banned because they failed to follow the forum rules, not because of the views they held. Look how long Buz or ICANT have been here, if there really was an "anti-creationist" thing going on here, do you really think they would be allowed to have stayed on for so long?
That was certainly not the case in the past, and for modulous and others who want to make the fairly outlandish claim that creationists and others who held opposing viewpoint to the norm on this forum got the greater benefit of the doubt from moderators, I challenge them to back that up with facts. Such as showing the number of people who were suspended or banned the last two years who were pro-evolution and those who weren't, and their respective duration of bannings. I think you can take it as a total number, or as a percentage of users who fall in either category and you will clearly see that creationists and the like get banned at a much higher frequency on this site, than do the evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Thank you for giving me your version of why you feel more creationists have been banned than evolutionists. I will take your opinion of that fact for what it is worth.
Still, I hardly feel reassured by your claims that the fact that there are a FEW non-darwinian evolutionists that are still able to post on this site as evidence of fair moderation. If that is the scientific reasoning you use for all of your analysis, I think it does not show much depth of critical review. For instance, what is the percentage of non-evolutionists that post on this forum? What are the percentages that have come here and been suspended? How many of those few non-evolutionists who post here do so with an equal amount of aggressive behavior towards their counterparts as the evolutionists do and are permitted to stay? Simply saying that they didn't follow the rules and everyone else did is not a very useful statement. Of course if someone is going to be banned, the reason given is going to be because they didn't follow the rules. That proves that the moderation has been fair-because if someone is banned the reason given was they didn't follow the rules? If 90% of the people in a population who was arrested and put in jail for jaywalking were black, and the police said- We didn't arrest them because they were black, we arrested them because they broke the rules, does that mean the policing was done fairly? What if the blacks only made up 10% of the population to begin with, and still were virtually always the ones arrested for jaywalking? And what if the police said, well, there are some black people we didn't arrest, so see, that proves it, we don't want to arrest only blacks. Of course, its easy for the police to simply say, well the whites folks just don't jaywalk. But anyone with a mind knows that's bullshit-including the police, who don't care if you know its bullshit, because they make the rules.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If people with a religious orientation stuck to the non science threads where evidence need not be bought to the table I'm sure that at least some of the suspensions in the past (Faith for example) would not have happened. Not to specifically pick on her but she has said before that she would not believe ANY evidence that contradicted the literal truth of the bible. Buzz once said that he did not want to get "bogged down with evidence".
The honest fact is that more creos commit the crime of not backing up their arguments with scientific evidence (a requirement for science threads). If more creos get suspended (and you have yet to compare all the banned members for affiliation and bring the evidence to the table) you can't automatically conclude it is because of bias you need to do some qualitative research to discover any themes that come up and systematically analyse them first. H.Y Gut Edited by Larni, : Written on iPhone so it got messed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Crash to Mod writes: You should step down from your moderator post immediately, as you've made it clear in this thread you're no more fit to moderate now than you were, then. Crash to me writes: [your] reaction seems dramatically out of proportion to the restrained and deliberate post to which you were replying. can you not see how unbelievably OTT you are? Restrained? FFS Crash, your inability to recognise any chance of being wrong is as frightening now as it was when you endlessly "debated" Holmes. Much of what you have brought to bear in this thread has been exposed as false, and the rest as debatable. Many have stood up and said that we don't agree with you and Rrhain's interpretation of events. But here you are, acting as if there has been zero opposition and claiming right to sentence on the back of a unaminous jury. The jury wasn't unaminous, it's not even in your favour. The simple facts are that you were wrong then, Rrhain was wrong then, you are wrong now, Rrhain is wrong now. My confidence in these facts? High, say 90%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Who cares what his motives were, Mod? The moderator team. If he was driven by a motivation to prove the moderators were evil, and was going to stoop to disrespect in order to do that - that's a problem. It's not difficult to criticise moderators without disrespect, keeping it on topic (about procedures, not people) and while following moderator requests to keep the tone civil. You managed to do it within acceptable limits.
Well, it's certainly the criticism I leveled...The criticism was always about how moderators were behaving, but that was the single issue that moderators in that thread were singularly unwilling to discuss. At least keep the goalposts fixed down, moving them around all the time is just not cricket old chap. The criticism I was talking about was 'moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction.' Your quote was about moderators having unwritten rules of ignoring civil requests, and that members will be suspended for raising good arguments against moderators. Did you raise the point that "moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction" in that thread?
He was only being uncivil to you, though, which should have been a basis for you to recuse yourself from taking moderator action. If someone else had suspended Dan it would have gone a little further towards confidence in the moderators, but ultimately if you had just done your job in regards to NJ, Dan (and Berb) would never have gotten uncivil in the first place. There it is again - a perfectly reasonable point that moderators shouldn't act on offences against them. That was the one I didn't see raised at the time. But you would have interpreted other moderators acting here as circling the wagons - by your own admission...so I fail to see how it could have increased your confidence in the moderators. It was a post in which Berb insulted me (insufferable nitwit! etc) that seemed to inspire Percy to suspend him...but that act of impartiality didn't raise confidence in moderator actions did it? I did my job with regards to NJ. I read a crap load of his posts and didn't see an infraction. That they disagreed doesn't give Berb and Dan a free pass to break the rules.
You gave me pretty direct examples of people being called "idiots" and other names, being directly sworn at, and the like. You didn't give me any example of the kind of very indirect inference involved in perceiving the insult in being given advice on how to eat bananas. But you interpreted Dan's words as being more than 'advice on banana eating'. And Dan confirmed it was not just friendly advice on banana eating (and if it was, it would still have been off topic). You were the one that interpreted it as implying I was a retarded monkey. I'm fairly sure there were examples amongst that list that beat your interpretation of what Dan was saying. Anyway - you said "Hey, if someone like you tries on the shoe of an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather and finds that it fits, what can I say?". It wasn't that you were calling EltonianJames "an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather"...just that he fit the shoes of one. You still got suspended. Percy implied that Faith was stubborn and thought her critics were all idiots. He got suspended for it.
I get that. Nonetheless, to be insulted by the prospect of being told how to eat a banana certainly rises to a level of sensitivity. I keep saying I wasn't insulted. I guess you are in 'la la la I won't believe an otherwise nice person who has been potentially corrupted by the power of being able to suspend people and edit their posts!" mode. As you agreed "Indeed I'm fairly certain that his words didn't upset you." so why are you now claiming that I was being sensitive? Which is it? Am I hypersensitive or are you fairly certain I'm not?
Now that you're denying that, you have absolutely no case whatsoever, regardless of what he subsequently said to you. I think "Yes -your judgement that I was breaking the forum rules is accurate" should suffice to settle the case as to whether or not a forum rule was broken. And I'm not denying anything. I was merely pointing out that it didn't need to be about retarded monkeys for it to be disrespectful. Given that it might possibly have been viewed as friendly advice on eating a banana by someone who was trying to be a pedantic asshole (such as you are being with this line of argument) - I didn't suspend Dan (You haven't explicitly broken the rules Dan) because as you say, he could have been just posting info on fruit eating. He didn't need to confirm it was in fact disrespectful. He didn't need to post an off topic post. He didn't need to continue posting with a crappy tone after being warned to keep it civil. He did do that. He got suspended for so doing. And your criticism was that he shouldn't have got suspended for criticising moderator's actions - not that I shouldn't have suspended someone who was directing a forum rule breach at me.
But you didn't suspend him for ignoring moderator requests. You suspended him because, in your judgement, that's what he wanted you to do. It was my opinion that he wanted to be suspended, yes. But I wasn't going to suspend someone based on that, not really. That's why I cited 3 forum rule violations - at least one of which he admitted. If you dispute the other two let me know.
I tried to explain to you, that's not what he was saying - that people don't say "Oh, I know you'll suspend me for this" because they want to be suspended, they say it because they're observing a situation of fairly predictable injustice. You don't need to explain it again because I'm not stupid. But I keep explaining that saying "I know you'll suspend me for this" doesn't give you immunity from breaking the rules. Some people are often saying "I know you'll suspend me for this" and they don't get suspended. He wasn't suspended for saying that. After all - he said it and we didn't suspend him for the post in which he said it. Sometimes those people will continue to become less and less civil until they are suspended which then makes them feel vindicated because they 'predicted I'd be suspended for criticising the moderator'. You were one of those that said something along those same lines. Difference is - you didn't become particularly uncivil in so doing. Some people people use the tactic to try to avoid getting suspended too. If they post that, a moderator might be afraid to suspend someone where they might otherwise have done so without hesitation. "Come see the unfairness inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
At any rate, asking to be suspended isn't against the forum guidelines, so it can't be a basis for punishment. And being suspended isn't just a penal thing.
But, of course, that's the point - whatever criticism you would like to ignore, you can simply assert is "unreasonable." Well, when a person admits their criticism is unreasonable - it makes determining that a whole lot easier. At the time, I didn't realize your posts were stemming from the fact that you were of the position that you would simply believe the worst possible interpretation was true. That's unreasonable - because it cannot be reasoned with. Whatever is said against the criticisms is assumed to be a lie, wagon circling, authority bias etc etc etc.
But again - you're acting like there was literally nothing else anyone could do but suspend Dan, and then suspend Rrhain from complaining about it, and then ultimately demand that criticism of those actions come to an end or else more suspensions would follow. Well sure, we could simply have let members say and do what they like to whom. We could let the discussion of moderator procedures thread become the 'flame the moderators thread'.
All you had to do was the right thing, and neither Berberry's, nor Dan's, nor Rrhain's behavior ever would have become an issue. And Percy said back then
quote: You thought one thing was 'the right thing'. The moderators disagreed. That's fine - post your criticism. We were fine with that. Which is why we let Dan post a dozen messages that were critical of moderator action.
Don't play it like Dan gave the moderator team no choice. I didn't. I was addressing the reasonable criticism you did make - so I'd appreciate it if you responded in kind. You argued that another moderator should have stepped in. I suggested that if they had, and had they agreed with me and suspended Dan - it would not have changed your views on moderator impartiality at all. Nor anybody else who has chronic suspicion of anyone with a even a modicum of 'authority'. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
We have just been through the archives and all the messages courtesy of Crashfrog and the majority of us find that Mod, Purpledawn, Percy and any and all other members of the Moderation team did not err in this case. I don't think that even comes close to being accurate, especially since a substantial number of people who were on my side back then are now permanently banned and can't pipe up to say so. No one here now gives a flying flip, Crash. This community rejects your bullshit.
I don't expect an apology, in fact I think I've gotten all the admission it's possible to get out of him, and at any rate it doesn't exactly matter given the changes to moderator philosophy around here. Then why do you continue to push your vendetta?Petulance? Immaturity? Trolling? But your participation in this thread, AZPaul, has been the complete and vulgar invention of events that occurred only in your imagination. Riiight. Sorry you feel that way, Frog. It is well past time for you to end this BS. Move on, Frog.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Bolder-dash writes: Ok, I am wiling to test that theory. I shall start a new thread and see if it is as evenly handed as you suggest. I didn't say it couldn't be better. Imo, it's better than ever by and at large. More creationists are coming in as the site improves in all respects. There's never going to be parity in a science board because there is not parity in ideology. Ours is the minority view, don't forget. In view of that, the mods are reasonably even handed. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:A lot of grief would have been saved if the participants had followed the first Admin msg to get back on topic and gotten back on topic. A lot of grief would have been saved if the participants had followed the second Admin msg to get back on topic and gotten back on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
It was both modulous and at least one other poster that made the claim that creos are given more latitude to speak their minds then evolutionists, because Percy wanted to encourage MORE vigorous debate on his website from opposing views. So shouldn't it be up to them to prove this claim with scientific evidence first?
However, if you don't feel that they have any obligation to back up their claims with scientific evidence, I guess I have already won the argument, because that proves that a double standard DOES exist (scientifically proven) and thus I am correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Fair enough.
What evidence would satisfy you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
This charade has been going on for quite some time. I think the Defense and Prosecution have made their arguments, and anything beyond this is simply a redundancy at this point.
So let us all deliberate with a series of yea's or nay's, guilty or not guilty.
Did Modulous overstep his duties and go from forum enforcement to forum brutality? My vote: Nay Not guilty "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
read Suspensions and Bannings Part III and let me know your analysis. Then examine member Faith. See how often she has been given second chances. Then randman. Then Ray Martinez...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
From what I've read about all this: nay.
Did Modulous overstep his duties and go from forum enforcement to forum brutality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, in America belief in something other than strict Darwinian evolution is not the minority view, but you wouldn't know it by the way the media portrays this fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Yes, I read that faith was suspended indefinitely until she could find someone who shares her views. I actually had not been aware that having someone share your same views was also a requirement of this forum. I may be in trouble in that case.
I also would like to know how often Dr. A, or AzPaul3 or any number of other antagonistic repliers have been given second chances...and 3rd, and 4th....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024