|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
NoNukes writes: But your current rule... This isn't some new rule of convenience. Longtimers will likely recall that I have many times over the years said things like, "EvC Forum exists to examine creation science's claim that it is every bit as much science as all the other scientific fields." I've also said things like, "The Bible can be a source of ideas and inspiration but is not, in and of itself, evidence." Being scientific in the science forums is just a part of staying on-topic. To this end it would be perfectly fine for a creationist to say, "I know there was a Flood because the Bible says so, but now I will present the scientific evidence that the Flood really happened." But it would catch the attention of moderators for a creationist to say, "I know there was a Flood because the Bible says so, and any evidence you have that says otherwise is wrong." When Faith begins letting references to Bible topics creep into her posts then she's usually headed in the direction of that latter creationist position. We've seen a number of recent examples, so I'm trying to address the possibility early. In the science forums members are requested to support positions with facts rather than Bible-based claims. Those who wish to take a Bible-based approach to evidence are encouraged to use the Theological Creationism and ID forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I thinking specifically of Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it, but there is at least one other.
At the cited topic, there are currently 1739 messages, of which 174 are from Admin. He is third on the post number list. While Admin's effort is impressive, my impression is that he is more doing debate under the Admin ID, than just moderating. Looking at the bulk of the Admin messages content, would they have seemed improper had they come from the Percy ID, or another non-admin member? On the flip side, in the more distant past, I've also sometimes noticed admins moderating via their non-admin ID's. Comments? AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Adminnemooseus writes: At the cited topic, there are currently 1739 messages, of which 174 are from Admin. He is third on the post number list. And it's been a long time since a mod here tried to enforce the rigors of scientific debate on a creationist debater in our science threads. Past damned time. Edited by Omnivorous, : +t"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Adminnemooseus writes: At the cited topic, there are currently 1739 messages, of which 174 are from Admin. He is third on the post number list. And it's been a long time since a mod here tried to enforce the rigors of scientific debate on a creationist debater in our science threads. Past damned time. But without creationists to try to educate, as hopeless as that often is, we'd have about 90% fewer posts in those threads and the remaining posts would be largely in agreement. And we'd be missing out on a lot of fun reading the absolutely silly things creationists come up with in the guise of science when what they're doing (as everyone knows) is pure religious apologetics. The pretzels they have to twist their arguments into to try to appear scientific, while being the exact opposite, are quite amusing. And it all helps us to refine our arguments, which isn't a bad thing. So, I'd favor being a little lax in the science threads.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I've also said things like, "The Bible can be a source of ideas and inspiration but is not, in and of itself, evidence." Being scientific in the science forums is just a part of staying on-topic. Right, admin. And I certainly agree that Faith was over the line in the forum in which you gave your warning. However telling people not to bring up Bible topics is hardly the same thing as your long standing rule against using the Bible to support a scientific argument. A perfectly acceptable post in say, the Accuracy and Inerrancy topic would be one that described a Biblical topic and explain why it did or did not happen as described. A rebuttal that claimed that the Bible did not actually say that would also seem to be allowable. Your statement to " avoid references to Biblical topics ... in any thread' would seem to rule out the entire discussion. It seems quite likely that you don't actually mean you you said. I don't expect you to acknowledge that you crossed the line with your warning. It's pretty clear that we can continue to discuss things like how many allele's can be present in a species if the Bible is correct in an appropriate thread in the scientific forum, regardless of what you recently posted.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses. Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Coyote writes: So, I'd favor being a little lax in the science threads. Agreed. But "a little" is a lot less than the laxity that generally prevails for creationists here, and Faith seems able to take the heat. I like Faith's feistiness and command of the language. She is capable of writing with grace and wit--she is also capable of following the clear standards of scientific debate. If she is not held to that standard, then we are merely improving her vocabulary and ability to obfuscate. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Adminnemooseus writes: I thinking specifically of Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it, but there is at least one other. At the cited topic, there are currently 1739 messages, of which 174 are from Admin. He is third on the post number list. While Admin's effort is impressive, my impression is that he is more doing debate under the Admin ID, than just moderating. Looking at the bulk of the Admin messages content, would they have seemed improper had they come from the Percy ID, or another non-admin member? It surprised me, too, that in the end I posted so many messages. My goal was to bring side issues that were threatening to push the main topic aside to a quick conclusion. Horizontality is one example, dropstones are another. I believed that a couple or few exchanges between me and Faith would bring these side issues to a close so that discussion of the main topic could continue. The physical impossibility of Faith's misconception of how the real world works seemed fairly obvious and easy to resolve. But that turned out not to be the case. Faith would try ignoring me, so I would post the information again. And again. When she did deign to respond and argue for her positions I worked hard to find new and more effective arguments. When that didn't work I asked Faith to postpone arguing for positions for which she didn't yet have evidence, but this would work for only a short while, and then the process would start again. At what point should I have given up? I don't know, but it would seem a bad precedent to allow members to nullify moderation simply by drawing out an exchange and making moderators post too much. Right now, as far as moderation goes, I'm looking at the Great Unconformity thread not as a failure but not as a success either. I did learn some things. I do think that moderator intervention to try to bring a side issue to a quick conclusion is a good idea, but that if that doesn't work after a short while that the moderator should rule on the side issue, holding that for that thread the side issue should be considered resolved in the direction he chooses, and that those who would like to continue discussing the side issue should propose a new thread or find an appropriate existing thread.
On the flip side, in the more distant past, I've also sometimes noticed admins moderating via their non-admin ID's. The Moderator Guidelines discourage moderators from moderating in the same thread where they're participating:
Looking at this now it feels like it should be phrased more strongly. Sometimes when I'm in a heated discussion as Percy a member will say something like, "I guess you'll ban me now," and I always respond that as a participant in the thread I cannot moderate. Participating in threads as a normal member when people know you're also a moderator is a mixed bag. It feels like some members treat you normally, others treat you with deference, others seem to have a bit of paranoia, and yet others like to test the boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
NoNukes writes: However telling people not to bring up Bible topics is hardly the same thing as your long standing rule against using the Bible to support a scientific argument.... I don't expect you to acknowledge that you crossed the line with your warning. It's pretty clear that we can continue to discuss things like how many allele's can be present in a species if the Bible is correct in an appropriate thread in the scientific forum, regardless of what you recently posted. Yes, of course discussion like that is fine. I wasn't adding a new rule to the Forum Guidelines. The request to avoid Bible topics was for that thread only because for that topic I know where Faith is going when she begins mentioning the Flood and so forth. I was laying the groundwork for requesting that Faith avoid saying things like, (paraphrasing of course) "We know the Flood created a genetic bottleneck..." so that she could instead concentrate on her *evidence* for a genetic bottleneck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
In general I've appreciated Percy's moderation, he's kept some subtopics in line and had a clarifying influence overall. I do agree that at times he goes over the line into participating in the debate. Not enough to make an issue of though.
What's bothering me today that brought me to this thread is that now he seems to be micromanaging me to extreme excess. Can't use this phrase, can't say that. Thanks for the opportunity to vent. Otherwise "I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone."--(attributed to Sigmund Freud) Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The GWW thread should never have been promoted. It's "topic" is impossibly broad. There's dozens of topics in there, each of which could sustain a thread for weeks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1
|
Hey its America. Land of free choice. Coke or Pepsi. Logic or Belief.
Satan or Psychosis. I promoted her. Granted she isn't disciplined. Granted she may be promoting her own religious agenda. Still....she is a creationist. We don't simply have one type of thinking here.God created war so that Americans would learn geography. —Mark Twain "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Not promoting groupthink... but she's just mindlessly regurgitating crap (almost all of it irrelevant) and not participating in the discussion at all. At least Faith makes some attempt.
As long as the thread covers dozens of topics it's going to be a disaster. Have her start a thread on one aspect; GPS, Lagrange points, Foucault pendulum, ... the list is endless. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
She has told us she is leaving. I really had hopes that she would stay and get to know us...our unique personality quirks, our logic, our reasoning, and our kind souls. I tend to give newer members a bit more leeway in topic proposals and would have tolerated one topic all over the place as long as their was no overt attempt to spam or advertise. Even that will be mildly tolerated for an older EvC member---but nobody does it so we don't have an issue with any of our 141 active members or 8342 total.
All I can say to those of you who insist upon logic, reason, and reality is that I will defend any new member no matter how illogical they are even in the science forums as long as they understand that they will be challenged by all of you and not to take it personally. Its a rare breed who can handle such a gauntlet, however. God created war so that Americans would learn geography. —Mark Twain "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
All I can say to those of you who insist upon logic, reason, and reality is that I will defend any new member no matter how illogical they are even in the science forums as long as they understand that they will be challenged by all of you and not to take it personally. Even when they break forum rules, ignore moderator requests, and show no signs whatsoever of wanting an actual discussion?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
We don't need pure cranks here.
We have a lot of good debates with our creationists (e.g., Faith), but pure cranks should be encouraged to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024