Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Hi Jon and Omnivorous,No links were provided to the posts in question, so I hope I'm not too far off the mark, but I think AdminPhat was expressing a preference that positions be supported with a rationale based upon something tangible. In the religious forums this wouldn't mean evidence of a scientific nature, but a position might be based upon a book or a philosophy or history or perhaps a logical line of reasoning. Perhaps the underlying rationale for a position hasn't been made sufficiently clear with the result that to a moderator someone appears to be objecting or rebutting without reason.

He said he had been drinking and then related a very personal story. I email'd the content to him, he can post it again if he wants.

The thread's not closed, but the last message is from AdminPhat who says he's closing it. I don't know what his intentions were. He may even have closed it for a while and then reopened it, there's no way to know since we don't maintain a history of those kinds of actions.Anyway, you shouldn't have any difficulty posting to that thread.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Got him, thanks!

Hi Chuck,I wish I could help you, I really do, but Dr Adequate and PaulK do not seem to be violating the Forum Guidelines. It's one thing to use ridicule as a substitute for debate, it's quite another to call attention to the ludicrous elements of a position.I confess I share the same wonderment as Dr Adequate, not as an evolutionist but just as a normal thinking person. My role as moderator does not call for me to suspend my powers of thought - in fact, it requires them of me, because EvC Forum like to pride itself on requiring rational discussion.So one thing I know for sure is that things that happen leave evidence behind. Many things can be established without eyewitnesses having been present, a principle that creationists understand and apply as readily as everyone else, except perhaps when it comes to evolution.Now I understand that for a creationist evolution seems an incredible claim, and most of us would probably agree that incredible claims require incredible evidence, but demanding eyewitnesses? Seriously?I'm sure this message feels unfair to you. All I can offer is an opportunity to discuss the need for eyewitnesses in a thread in the Is It Science? forum. If you propose a topic over at Proposed New Topics I'll give it some attention as quickly as I can.

I think there are several causes for the recent dearth of creationists here at EvC Forum:

1. Dover. Except for the "Teach the Controversy" efforts, in the wake of Dover creationism and ID greatly reduced their overt efforts, and creationist activity here is proportional to these evangelizing efforts. Creationist participation here has declined every year since Dover.
   ​
2. Increasing use by the online community of portable technology like cell phones and tablets where discussion boards are not as easy to use. We're not getting many new evolutionists, either.
   ​
3. Efforts by board administration at discouraging the participation of those creationist/ID members for whom English was a second language, or whose comprehension skills were so poor the effect was the same. Though they uniformly refused to acknowledge any comprehension issues the problems were obvious, sometimes hilarious, but always frustrating.
   ​
4. Ineffective board moderation at reining in the behavior of some of our more obnoxious evolutionist members, who though few post frequently and, if credit be given, very effectively.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

The complaints about Artemis Entreri and his responses here have been noted. Please post no more messages about this specific problem to this thread.

Hi Crash,In my opinion, charges of dishonesty or any other human foible are a distracting off-topic debate tactic. Please keep them out of the discussion threads. This thread is the proper place for such complaints.Also in more of my opinion, you're already a strong and very effective advocate for your positions. You don't need such tactics.

You first mentioned dishonesty in reference to Catholic Scientist and Modulous in Message 150, then you continued on that theme in Message 163 and Message 170. At least in part it seemed to derive from your belief that a difference of opinion about the value of unpaid experience actually boiled down to equivocation and that that was dishonest. In your view, defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic? "You're being dishonest, sir!" "I am not being dishonest." "Now you're changing the subject." Seriously?If you believe so strongly that others are being dishonest that you just can't keep it to yourself then my advice is just don't participate because in the eyes of moderators it looks like you're getting personal in order to distract attention from weaknesses in your position.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Hi Crashfrog,Okay, have it your way, you didn't do anything wrong. Please don't do it again. And... ...please stop trying to lay the blame at everyone else's door but your own. I did not misrepresent your views or quote you out of context. No one attempted to introduce dishonesty as a topic. The concept that defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is the equivalent of introducing a new topic is wholly your own. That's not necessary. When I made my moderator comments I failed to notice that AdminPhat had already moved the thread to Free For All, so my comments don't apply. And Modulous says he has no objections to an unmoderated thread. CS hasn't said anything, so I assume it must be okay with him. Have at it.

So what is the view you *do* hold? That CS and Mod really wanted to discuss dishonesty and so they tried to turn the thread into a discussion of dishonesty? That makes even less sense. And when they respond to your accusations of dishonesty will you again accuse them of trying to introduce dishonesty as a topic? If you were really interested in the thread's topic I would think that permission to discuss dishonesty would be of no interest to you.Maybe I'm missing something, I see Panda has cheered your post, but so far you're not making any sense to me.If someone's being dishonest or stupid or wrong or confused it is really only necessary to point out the facts. They speak for themselves.

Hi Panda,Thanks for the reply, I think I might have this now, let's see. Ideally what would have helped me the most is a clear statement of what Crashfrog actually meant (e.g., "By 'introducing the topic' it was only meant that..."), so I suppose I'm guessing again. Did Crashfrog only mean that he wasn't the first to mention dishonesty? That's true, he wasn't, and I've already mentioned that, but I don't think it's relevant. Catholic Scientist's mention of dishonesty was in passing and didn't have any discernible impact on discussion. Crashfrog's was persistent and central to his messages, for example: Here Crash actually touts himself as a tenacious punisher of dishonesty: But Crashfrog is not a member of the moderator team. EvC Forum does not need vigilantes. If this is how Crashfrog sees himself then he should stop. I don't know in what threads Crash carried out similar campaigns against Dronester and PD, but they have my sympathy.The thread is in Free For All now so it doesn't matter, but debate participants should be making points that bear directly on the topic rather than on the people they're debating with.

I am not of two minds, but EvC Forum does have two different types of forums. The thread is now in Free For All, and that is an unmoderated forum (as it happens, it's the only unmoderated forum). If you want to play vigilante there be my guest. The best suggestion I can make is to follow the Forum Guidelines which request that discussion be kept impersonal and focused on the topic.

The analogy I'd use is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The problem you have is that you're yelling "fire" every time someone lights a cigarette. If you're so hypersensitive to inconsistency (a fairly common human trait) that you see lying and dishonesty as a significant issue then you should find another way to spend your spare time.In any event, what you're doing is against the Forum Guidelines. Stick to the facts, stick to explaining the facts, stick to explaining how the facts fit together, stick to the topic. You can even point out inconsistencies to your heart's content, but if you're going to draw conclusions of lying and dishonesty then please keep them to yourself.