Mods believing in creation/evolution

Hi, I'm new to this forum and would like to know the constitution of the mods.Brief history of me. I've been in a couple of forums discussing evolution vs creationism and found this site. One of the first threads I came across was someone getting banned and someone complaining about the site being biassed.Now, I've experienced previously bias of mods, and basically it was why I left that forum. It wasn't an evolution vs creationism site, however every topic I would discuss it would end up being the same people arguing agains the same people.So essentially I would just like to know who the mods are and their stance on the whole issue. For example I think it would be pretty silly to have a site where 100% of the mods took a certain opinion if you get my drift, as I would prefer unbiased mods regulating it.ThanksZealot.

I'm only an occasional contributer here and don't know the modrators here well, nor their positions on the main topics of discussion on these forums. I would say, however, that I've never seen any genuine bias displayed by them in dealing with problems.Some general comments from my experience on another board I do moderate.
1) Moderators are never unbiased in the sense that they are usually (if not always) promoted from the ranks of regular posters - that is they regularly contribute to the discussions and hence do hold strong views and an interest in debating. And, to ask moderators to avoid discussions they're interested in incase they need to moderate the discussion is distinctly unfair on the mods (and no one would do the job under those circumstances). Usually this results in mods clearly identifying when they act as moderators (here they have variant names).
2) Good moderators (like those here) don't mix normal debate posts with moderation ones. And, when they do post as mods they limit themselves to comments on style in relation to clearly displayed guidelines. Good mods don't post as mods to criticise the contents of someone posts.
3) All moderators will, sooner or later, reprimand a miscreant poster and get accused of bias or partiality. Such accusations almost always say more about the person making the accusation than the accused moderator.One last comment. Well done to the moderators on this forum. You do a great job.(Oh, and I think someone may be moving this discussion to a more appropriate place)Alan

The owner of the list accepts evolution, however two of the other moderators are creationists (TrueCreation and TranquilityBase)The moderators enforce the list rules and I have seen no significant evidence of bias in their decisions.

Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.

I haven't seen any evolutionist bias, in fact just the opposite. The lack of consistent creationist input makes the moderation extremely lenient on the creationist membership.Well, one of the moderators did say he'd love to kick my mother in the ass for not aborting me when she had the chance, so there is a pro-choice factor there. But I'm sure with a handle like 'Zealot' you must be extremely tolerant of different world views.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Hi, good to hear.One more question, is there actual moderation ?The forum I was on had a rule 1, which was 'no name calling', however you could get away with calling someone a ^$^"*" moron (and that was fine!), so I'm just curious about the acceptance of that.That and blasphemy. Seeing as there are clearly alot of religious discussions, is there a curbe on blasphamy ?Thanks

Near the top of the page there is a "Forums Nav" drop-down box where you can access the page entititled "Forum Rules." These are the Ten Commandments, as it were. Did that last bit sound blasphemous?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Hi, Zealot! Welcome aboard!There are five moderators, but two have been inactive of late: The history is that by far the most active moderators have been Admin and Adminnemooseus, both evolutionists.Take the feedback about how good the moderation here is with a grain of salt, because all the feedback is from evolutionists. I'm sure Creationist feedback would tell you that the evolutionist moderators stifle the Creationist voices by harassing them and placing unreasonable requirements upon them.The Forum Guidelines are more like rules of the road. It is not asked that they be followed to the letter. Follow most of them most of the time and you'll do fine. Cautions usually only happen after a pattern of misbehavior occurs, though sometimes the pattern emerges quickly. Anyway, they're guidelines, not criminal statutes.Thanks for joining, and have fun!------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Yeah, nope read it, however it just didnt say much about content of post. I'm sure from what I've read it already sounds better, however I tend to get annoyed when arguing with someone something and they end off their posts with 'That is the most moronic thing etc' . Just wanted to know the status on that.Glad to be aboard..cheers

Well, I think that if somebody makes a really dumb mistake, or says something outrageously wrong through ignorance, we'll generally point that out. How polite we are in doing so depends on the general tenor of the post. People who say things like "I think this might be the case" tend to be corrected gently. People who say "everybody with a brain knows this" tend to get slapped down hard.Basically we reserve the right to respond in kind. Calling people "idiots" is generally poor form, but ridiculous arguments will be pointed out as such.

As Admin (Percy) has pointed out above, there are currently 5 moderators.

quote:

---

Admin (Percipient, evolutionist)
Adminnemooseus (Minnemooseus, evolutionist)
Adminaquility (Tranquility Base, Creationist, inactive)
AdminPamboli (Mister Pamboli, evolutionist, inactive)
AdminTC (TrueCreation, Creationist)

---

All the above, except AdminPamboli, have "administrator" status, and have moderator powers extending over all the forums. AdminPamboli is a forum specific moderator, in the theological forums ("The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" and "Faith and Belief"). Admin (Percy), as site owner (and bill payer) and webmaster has control of the inner workings of the entire site.We are in the process of bringing another moderator on-line. He is Brian (AdminBrian to be), and he will also be a theological forum specific moderator. Not that I wouldn't at all mind having he and AdminPamboli's operations extend into the other forums. By the way, Brian is also coming from the evolution side.I have attempted to bring others (all from the evolution side) into moderator positions, but they all are reluctant to get involved as such. Call it what you want, but I find it difficult to impossible to find creationist side moderator candidates.

quote:

---

The history is that by far the most active moderators have been Admin and Adminnemooseus, both evolutionists.

---

Actually, I don't recall Adminquility having ever done any moderation activity, and AdminTC barely any more. AdminPamboli's scope is less, and has had rather minimal moderator activity.Percipient (Percy) continues to take a pretty active roll in the various debates. I (in the minnemooseus non-admin mode) have cut back on my participation considerably. I now more entertain myself in the realm of the twilight zone of administration.Admin and I (Adminnemooseus) take somewhat different focuses (foci (?)) in our activities. Admin tends to be more functional relating to all the forum guidelines. I, on the other hand, tend to focus in more on trying to keep topics on topic, and on general forum organization. I probably close many more topics than Admin does.To some degree, both Admin and I do take part in topics, in both admin and non-admin modes. There has certainly been instances where each of us have disqualified ourselves from any admin action, in topics that we have been a too significant part of the debate while in the non-admin mode.Both Admin and I are probably guilty of ocassionly mixing the admin and non-admin modes in a given message. When I do such, I try to be very specific about which mode I'm operating in. The alternative would be to split the message into two messages. Also, there can be a gray area between admin and non-admin type statements.You may find it interesting to look at the topic participation indexes of Admin, of Percipient, of Adminnemooseus, and of minnemooseus.You may wish to take it as a pro-evolution/anti-creation bias, but the reality is that is set up as a site of scientific debate. As such, the creation side may well have tough going. If you're up to the challenges, you can learn a lot here.Cheers,
AdminnemooseusPs to Admin/Percy: I am soon going to be out of contact for a while, but the schedule is currently rather in flux.------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-16-2003]

It is true that I rarely enforce my modorative authority on evcforum, mostly due to my lack of availability to scan threads before the other more active moderators do their thing (Admin & Adminnemoseus). Another reason is because my time is limited. I don't want to be an "armchair scientist" forever and am regularely in the books reading new material. Trying to maintain my own site is difficult as well (the "OYSI") I'm trying to get a better domain name and getting ready to update the site when I get it.As far as the moderation of the other evo proponent moderators I have found little bias in their administrative posts. Of course if anyone feels there has been an evocation of bias, feel free to give me an e-mail and I will lend my assistance there.