Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 421 of 1049 (660736)
04-29-2012 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by Adminnemooseus
04-28-2012 7:34 PM


Re: Artemis Entreri complains at the "Fox news = false news" topic
Artemis Enteri is an obvious troll, and best ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-28-2012 7:34 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 422 of 1049 (661706)
05-09-2012 1:58 PM


nvm
nvm
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 423 of 1049 (662949)
05-20-2012 2:08 PM


Buz's Occam's Razor topic
See Message 33 and Message 35.
Regardless of intent, I'm amazed and dismayed by what an incredible failure of optics this is. Obviously Buz is going to act like his thread was such a masterpiece that we had no choice but to suppress it, and every creationist will see this as confirmation of their worst suspicions about the board. It certainly confirmed my suspicions that the moderators here are so hopelessly naive that they cannot possibly conceive why anyone might view their actions in any light but the most charitable. What are you going to say when creationists point to this as evidence that we suppress opposing views?
Percy, could you briefly describe your goal in enjoining Buzsaw from participation in science threads? Is the purpose to enable science discussion absent Buz's disruptive ignorance, or is it actually to prevent him from being involve in any science discussion whatsoever? If that's the case, how are we supposed to correct his misunderstandings?
The worst part of it is how needless it was. Buz was right about literally nothing in the entire thread. What on Earth was the pressing issue that necessitated this incredible misstep?

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Admin, posted 05-20-2012 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 426 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 424 of 1049 (662951)
05-20-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 2:08 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 2:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 2:44 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 425 of 1049 (662952)
05-20-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Admin
05-20-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
Neither of those threads were promoted, yet participating in them seems to have been made a precondition of Buz's ability to discuss science topics. You'll only let Buz participate in exactly the way he doesn't want to participate, so why is he even here? Why not ban him and be done with it?
If you're really concerned about the degree to which he requires "moderator attention", why not restrict him to Free For All and let him do whatever he wants? The uniquely circumscribed nature of his permissions here only affords him ample opportunity to play the martyr.
I can't understand why this isn't readily apparent to you. You've expressed regret about the poor participation of creationists at EvC, and (correctly, IMO) laid much of the blame at the feet of the evolutionists who immediately respond with more heat than light. But the way moderation so frequently gives the impression of a stacked deck has to bear some of the blame, as well. I understand, largely, the goals of moderation at EvC and I don't agree that they're meant to disadvantage creationists (except in so far as they're inherently disadvantaged by a requirement to support claims with evidence.) But frequently the moderation is so ham-handed that it takes an enormous act of good faith to see it as anything but enforcing uniformity of opinion. Surely you can't expect to rely on that good faith from creationists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Admin, posted 05-20-2012 2:35 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 426 of 1049 (662953)
05-20-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 2:08 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
Obviously Buz is going to act like his thread was such a masterpiece that we had no choice but to suppress it
So what? Who cares what Buz claims? The truth of the matter is that Buzsaw's thread was garbage. Buzsaw demonstrated in just a few posts that he had no idea what Occam's razor is, or how to apply it.
Further, he was ALREADY banned from the science forums for exactly the behavior on display here. The thread was quickly turning into a request for evidence followed by Buz's insistence that his posting history contained 8 years worth of evidence that he refuses to cite.
Finally, this thread belongs in the science forums. Buzsaw started it here as an attempt to side step his banning.
Still, I understand your point regarding appearances. But you will never be able to correct Buzsaw's misunderstandings. Ever.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 2:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 2:52 PM NoNukes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 427 of 1049 (662955)
05-20-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by NoNukes
05-20-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
So what? Who cares what Buz claims?
We've all identified it as a problem that creationist participation is so poor around here.
Moderator acts that exacerbate that problem should be subject to criticism, not bootlicking approval. Of course Buz's thread was stupid, I'm not a fucking idiot NoNukes, but that's not the point. The point is that when creationists tell you that the reason they don't put much effort here is that moderators act to suppress divergent opinion, moderators whose actions make it look like they're suppressing divergent opinion need to react with more self-reflection than to shrug their shoulders and wonder how their actions could possibly merit criticism. And evolutionist participants who can't possibly imagine how creationists - or even the often-forgotten "on the fence" lurkers - might see things differently should hold their tongues. The needless cheerleading is also an optics problem.
But you will never be able to correct Buzsaw's misunderstandings.
He's still here, he's still talking. While that's true there's always a chance he could learn. But that's not the fucking point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 2:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 7:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 428 of 1049 (662970)
05-20-2012 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 2:52 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
NoNukes writes:
So what? Who cares what Buz claims?
crashfrog writes:
We've all identified it as a problem that creationist participation is so poor around here.
IMO, the solution is not to make the forums Buzsaw more friendly. He is banned from the science forums for a reason. I would not have banned him, but I understand why it was done. Given the ban, the Occam's razor topic was a direct flouting of the rules. It is the kind of action that merits a permanent ban.
He's still here, he's still talking. While that's true there's always a chance he could learn.
No there is not. Buzsaw's refusal to learn is willful. If you think that he can learn, then what do you think is preventing him from complying with Percy's conditions for full reconciliation?
And evolutionist participants who can't possibly imagine how creationists - or even the often-forgotten "on the fence" lurkers - might see things differently should hold their tongues.
Who might that remark apply to? Surely you aren't suggesting that people who disagree with you should shut up.
I understand that Percy could make the board more attractive to creationists by exempting them all from the rules of engagement. I think that is the wrong answer.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 2:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 7:54 PM NoNukes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 429 of 1049 (662978)
05-20-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by NoNukes
05-20-2012 7:20 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
IMO, the solution is not to make the forums Buzsaw more friendly.
I still don't understand why the forum has been made specifically Buzsaw unfriendly. If his participation is not constructive, ban him for good and send him away. If he's a part of the discussions here, then he should be a part of them.
I'm not saying that Buzsaw should be subject to special treatment. In fact I'm saying that he shouldn't be. Nobody else is under an obligation to define the nature of evidence before they're allowed to post on a science topic.
Surely you aren't suggesting that people who disagree with you should shut up.
No, I'm suggesting that people have a care for how their overtures of support will be interpreted by a community who we'd like to have participate, here. Nobody needs to tell the moderators that they're making correct decisions. They already know they are. They need to know when they've fucked up, and when they have, they don't need knee-jerk support that makes it look like they're protecting us.
I understand that Percy could make the board more attractive to creationists by exempting them all from the rules of engagement.
Then you've completely missed my point, which is that Percy could make the board more attractive to creationists by not singling them out for mistreatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 7:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 8:03 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 431 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2012 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 1049 (662981)
05-20-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 7:54 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
hen you've completely missed my point, which is that Percy could make the board more attractive to creationists by not singling them out for mistreatment.
I haven't missed your point at all. I just disagree with it. I believe that Buzsaw has singled himself out. Buzsaw has earned his treatment in the science forums by his own refusal to supply evidenced based logical argument for most of a decade.
Every science based thread that I've seen him participate in turns immediately to crap, and the reasons are not, in my opinion, the fault of the people asking Buzsaw to support his silly assertions with evidence.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 7:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 8:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 431 of 1049 (662983)
05-20-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 7:54 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
Then you've completely missed my point, which is that Percy could make the board more attractive to creationists by not singling them out for mistreatment.
He hasn't. In my view the creos get way too much leeway.
I'm not saying that Buzsaw should be subject to special treatment. In fact I'm saying that he shouldn't be.
But you are.
Nobody else is under an obligation to define the nature of evidence before they're allowed to post on a science topic.
But anyone acting as Buz has in the past would be under the same sanctions. Buz has a track record. Percy has been more than willing to give him leeway. Buz refuses to act like it is requested. He acts like a guest in your house pissing on your carpet. Percy doesn't kick him out completely just keeps him out of the rooms with carpet.
I think Percy is very generous to Buz and every other creo.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 7:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 8:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 432 of 1049 (662985)
05-20-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Theodoric
05-20-2012 8:06 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
He hasn't.
Which evolutionists are barred from participation in the evolution forums? Please be specific.
But you are.
No, I'm not.
But anyone acting as Buz has in the past would be under the same sanctions.
No.
Anybody acting like Buz has in the past would be banned outright.
He acts like a guest in your house pissing on your carpet.
So why is he still here? Percy's doing Buz no favors by continually martyring him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2012 8:06 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 433 of 1049 (662987)
05-20-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by NoNukes
05-20-2012 8:03 PM


Re: Buz's Occam's Razor topic
I believe that Buzsaw has singled himself out.
By not having any evidence for any of his positions? How on Earth does that make him different than all the other creationists? How does that make him even in the least bit different? That's par for the course, but Buz is the only one whose participation is under such extreme constraint.
And it's not just Buz who is under the contraint; the rest of us are constrained from talking about science in any thread Buz chooses to start. What did I do to deserve to be placed under such restrictions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 8:03 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:14 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 436 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 10:28 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 434 of 1049 (663040)
05-20-2012 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by crashfrog
05-20-2012 8:14 PM


Don't be naive
Crash,
You are writing this as if you believe that EvC actually wants a fair discussion of the topic of evolution. I think that is an assumption that has no basis in reality. I believe that you may want a fair debate, but I think the evidence clearly shows that this is not the case with the admin. Percy has, unembarrassingly, talked about his strategies to win over the so called "fence sitters" who read this forum. Those strategies include allowing limited input from creationists, but it doesn't include allowing them to get the upper hand in any discussions. The point of this site is not to engage debate, its to win over those fence sitters.
Virtually every creationist that has ever posted here has said the reason they do so little anymore, is because it became obvious that the moderation was completely unfair, and intentionally so. They all said that, and yet the evolutionists all say, no no, that's not the reason you don't post, its because you are losing, its because you can't follow the rules...Every creationist who says they have been treated unfairly and quits is delusional? If that's one's assumption, then of course you already don't have a level playing field. But as Eugenie Scott says, and shows, you can't win a debate with creationists so you shouldn't try. I am sure Percy agrees with this.
Take Percy's recent comment that I am on a very very short leash here. That's a joke. The reason I am on a short leash? Because I have questioned evolution, and been critical of the moderation here. I have given my opinion, which is a strong one, but no more so then every evolutionist here. My actions are worse than Dr.A, or Granny, or Theoderic- they just fling **** -->**** -->**** on a daily basis? Its their job here. My last warning was because I responded back to Dr. A in the same way he responds to everyone, even pointing out the hypocrisy of the software that allows him to use words like i d i o t, but doesn't allow creationists, supposedly like me to use. And I am not even a creationist, I have never mentioned one thing about religion in this forum ever, and yet that doesn't really matter, because I have questioned the validity of your science.
The National Academy of Sciences doesn't want debate on the topic. PZ Meyers doesn't want debate. Richard Dawkins doesn't want debate. The science community doesn't want to allow it to be fairly debated in schools. They all have said they don't want to debate this-but they still want a way to try and convince the fence sitters. Percy wants participation from creationists so that he can have a website. But he certainly doesn't want to allow them to debate fairly, without his deciding how the debate will go.
I am on a short leash because I question the status quo here, ha. Gee what a surprise. Is any serious debater going to want to come on here on discuss the issues. Why would they? For who's benefit?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by crashfrog, posted 05-20-2012 8:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2012 10:25 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 444 by crashfrog, posted 05-21-2012 7:21 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 435 of 1049 (663042)
05-20-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Bolder-dash
05-20-2012 10:14 PM


Re: Don't be naive
Is any serious debater going to want to come on here on discuss the issues.
In science the primary debate is conducted in peer-reviewed journals.
As elsewhere in science, those journals require that one follows the scientific method and provides evidence.
Have a problem with that?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-20-2012 10:32 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024