Change in Moderation?

How you and other people manage to ignore the main originator of fundamentalist opposition, William Jennings Bryan, is beyond me. It's fine by me if you start a separate thread, especially if you then leave your drivel outside a thread which is meant for serious discussion of things like Gasman's essay on Haeckel's influence on the volkish movement, or indeed William Jennings Bryan's opposition to fanatical Darwinist ideologists.regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu

Percy said:

quote:

---

If you have a copy,...

---

Fortunately, there is a copy of the entire topic, available at http://EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology -->EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology

quote:

---

...why not post it again...

---

http://EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology -->EvC Forum: Forum: Christian Ideology might be a good place.Adminnemooseus

Does anyone else find it amusimg and ironic (rather deliciously ironic!) that Syamsu, in this thread, of all threads where people are complaining that he is tolerated despite breaking many forum rules, continues to break forum rules?Priceless.

Schraf,Sy is an absolute peach, he is creationistic ignorance in a microcosm, & then adds some more for effect.Only a creationist could ask for support for an argument, which Quetzal & Mammuthus supplied in abundance, & then accuse them of lawyering & trickery by producing "paperwork". Known to the the rest of us as "relevant reading material", by the way. And the fact he partially reads material & then claims to get intended meanings in context when clearly the author is saying exactly the opposite. That's just a sophisticated (I use the word advisedly) misquote that we're all familiar with from creationists.But since I'm on a thread about moderation, I do believe a little too much slack has been given to Syamsu "I've-said-it-so-it-must-be-true". And I say that admitting I've probably got away with more than I should of on occasions (frustration gets the better of me, sadly).Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

All fantasy, I don't break the forumrules. If it were the other way round, if I'd said that Dawkins says people are born altruist, then you would simply accuse of misrepresenting Dawkins also. Similarly if Quetzal and Mammuthus referenced some appraissals to support them, and I had referenced a bunch of paperwork to show how underdeveloped it is, then you would consider me to have broken forumrules again, because I would have to show how the paperwork supports my position. It's simple prejudice in a lively imagination, nothing more.I'm happy that most all evolutionists got their come-uppance in the end. There still remains the problem that these same evolutionists will continue to derail threads I start with posting huge amounts of drivel in them. Effectively surpressing a point of view that is highly critical of Darwinism. I think we can all agree that this kind of surpression is against forumrules, and that in future only serious counterarguments may be entered into threads I start.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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?

Syamsu, Yeah, but I've read him & you haven't. Who do you think has the most authoritative argument? Who is most likely to be misrepresenting?I post to you for the comedy value, Syamsu, nothing more.Mark

I didn't actually propose not posting in other threads, but it's fine by me if that what it takes to have a clean thread about darwinist ideology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's no more drivel than anything you spout.

Does anyone else here sense a possible affront to the guidelines? --Percy

There has been at least two discussions of moderation procedures happening elsewhere.One involves DNAunion, Mr. Hambre, and perhaps others. This lead up to Admin's message in the "Data, Information, and all that." topic.I will, at least for now, make no comment on the above cited.The other is in the "Who do you miss at EvC?" topic, which lead up to this message from Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Hi Hambre,
I have been around the entire time in lurker mode. I suspect Dan has been as well (either that or their is an Eliza Dushku show we don't know about that is keeping him occupied...like a Paris Hilton downloadable video sequel). Besides being extremely busy, the entire Moose anti-humor-protect-those-poor-creationists campaign ( specifically Syamsu) has completely soured me to the forum. I asked Moose to support Syamsu's statements since Sy refuses or explain why he has systematically picked off the likes of Scott Page, Darwinsterrier and is making a great effort to knock crashfrog off. He ignored the request and has since then been posting himself in the humor section and completely ignoring any and all forum rule violations by Syamsu and many other creationists. So I figure, I'm really very busy, none of the creationists on this site are interested in hearing what a scientist has to say anyway (since being ignorant must be so much fun), nobody will read any of the references I post, I don't even live in the U.S. anymore...so I figure to hell with it...more time for research. I will lurk until Moose picks you, Quetzal, mark24, holmes, schraf and crashfrog off. Then I will stop even that. EvC is just not as interesting or fun anymore. In any case, I am giving Moose his big birthday, Xmas, and groundhog day present wrapped up all in one nice package. I am out of here like Page and DT and he did not even have to go to the trouble of suspending or banning me. He can enjoy Syamsu's lucid and informative posts in peace (though he may have to suspend or ban Mr. Bound to get that peace back). I'm taking a break of indefinite length. If you need a reference barrage once in a while you can contact me through Percy.

---

I do think that extra protection is needed, for the endangered species "Creationist". If a rigorous guideline enforcement was done on the creationist side, we well might end up with a "creationist free zone" here.Per specific members:Syamsu - I think the perceived problem(s) would be minimized, if the offended members of the evolution side could enforce some self restraint. They complain that Syamsu is not worth replying to, yet they continue to do the replies. Often that descends into what seems to be trying to fight stupidity with stupidity. If you find Syamsu to be so offensive, just ignore him.SLPx (Scott Page) - I certainly have had my conflicts with SLPx, including having issued at least 1 of his (at least) 3 suspensions. I must, however, point out that SLPx's current suspension was issued by Admin/Percy. The suspension announcement can be found here, in the "Evolution and Probability" topic. As is the case with any suspended member, SLPx is welcome to contact Admin/Percy by e-mail, to request reinstatement. Apparently SLPx has never done such.Darwin's Terrier - Yes, a 4 day suspension was heavy handed, in dealing with the "little joke". But I thought a little heavy handedness would be useful, in making a strong impression upon DT and others. Subtlety does not seem to work. Anyhow, DT has posted once since the suspension. Since then, I have also personally e-mailed DT, explaining my position and attempting to welcome him back into participation.Crashfrog - I think that my relationship with Crashfrog is well documented elsewhere. Essentially, I am focusing in on him as being the greatest of the "pile on the creationist" culprits. All I am trying to do, is to get him to slow down some, including to give others of the evolution side some space to post some messages. I strongly suspect there are a lot of the evolution side out there, who think "Well, I'd like to say something here, but Crashfrog has already covered it". I have also (as minnemooseus) sometimes challenged what I have perceived as Crashfrog presenting "shaky science". That is certainly my right, as a member of . If Crashfrog and others want to interpret that as administrative bias, that's their problem.Mr. Hambre - I think I have attempted to suppress some of Mr. Hambre's misplaced attempts at humor, but it all, I do have a high respect for his input. In particular, I very much liked what he had to say at the "Finding Darwin's God" topic.Quetzal, mark24, holmes, schraf - I don't recall having had any substantial problems with messages from these people. I know I have given Quetzal and Holmes "Posts of the Month" nominations. I have tried to recruit Quetzal, Holmes, Mark, (and Mammuthus) as moderators, without success. I make that comment now, despite my general reluctance to make moderator recruitment a public discussion.The bottom line is, that we need more self-moderation by various members. It is beyond the practical abilities of the various admins/moderators to control things, short of many topic closures and suspensions happening.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

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.

why not ask Crashfrog to be a moderator? I think he'd be pretty good.PE

I think the uneven treatment of creationist and evolutionist posters is detracting from the quality of the board. A quite word is likely to be effective on most participants, particularly the evolutionists, rather than the big stick approach.Protection of creationists, particularly where their behaviour verges on trolling, provides no benefit to the board and only generates frustration for those who make the effort of providing thoughtful messages which are ignored.

I think it would be worthwhile for moderators / admin to keep an eye on new members for a while. If the new member is exhibiting trollish behaviour or violating guidelines then a gentle nudge early is likely to cure the behaviour if the new member is genuine. If the new member does not correct the misbehaviour then penalties should be applied.This strategy would reduce the risk of waste of bandwidth and frustration for genuine posters.