I want to raise the question of whether or not a moderator should debate in string he or she is also doing moderating in. I can easily see a conflict of interest and potential for abuses. I am not saying that moderator should not debate. I am merely saying that there is too much of a potential for abuse or neglect of their moderating function if they moderate the string they are also debating in.
First, even if moderators are acting above reproach it seems like their perceived status as moderator would stifle debate in the strings they are moderating. For example, let's say a moderator was acting unreasonable. I would say that even the best of us can sometimes act unreasonable so I do not think I am being to hypothetical at all.
Also, there is a larger temptation for abuse in areas that a moderator would feel passionate about. And since this is EVC forum and the topics are often controversial it seems as though this is likely to happen.
Lastly, it seems as though there is a potential for neglect of good moderating if the moderator is juggling too many balls because he is debating and moderating at the same time.
Here is what Brian said for example,
"Your initial post was comepletely against forums rules, I should have really jumped on it but I failed to do my admin job properly."
I realize this may be an unspoken rule regarding the points made in initial post because I do not recall it being in the rules but perhaps I merely do not remember this. Regardless, it seems that it could be argued that Brian was preoccupied with debating and thereby failed to do his job as moderator as a result.
Here is a comment from Truthlover which illustates the same point:
"EDIT: Shoot, I'm sorry, forgot to get out of admin mode again..."
Here are some examples of moderator abuse I will give to demonstrate my point:
EXAMPLE 1:
This example is from Truthlover who started to particpate in the string at post 20.
Truthlover said:
"But worst of all, he read it carefully enough to point out to you that you used two example of people who were not swallowed at all, which was utterly pointless, and really was enough to make anyone else just throw your paper away. Brian kindly continued, because he's autistic or something (just kidding, Brian) and able to stay focused on a subject far longer than anyone I know.
Then, you, instead of thanking him for pointing out exactly why people are ignoring what you say and even scoffing at you a bit, SAY THAT HE HASN'T READ YOU PAPER WELL ENOUGH!!!
It doesn't get much worse than that, Mr. kendemyer."
Here is one passage in question that Truthlover was citing:
"A shark was close by, which, as he was swimming and crying for help took him in his wide throat, so that he forthwith disappeared...
From all this, it is probable that this was the fish of Jonah."
Here is my response:
"Is there 100% proof from these passages he was swallowed whole. No there is not. Perhaps, he was taken underwater for a bit. Perhaps, he wasn't. We do know that the sailor DISAPPEARED. Also, we do know it was compared to Jonah. I personally do not think the Book of Jonah is riding on this shark account nor can it be used against it. I do think it demonstrates a sloppy critique of Brian's and a sloppy commentary of Brian's critique by Truthlover."
Here is what Brian said:
"This is total rubbish Ken, and does nothing to support Jonah’s narrative. The shark did not swallow the sailor whole, he was in its throat."
Here is another passage of mine where I address Truthlover and Brian concerning this matter and in this case it is a sperm whale account:
"...it is true that I accidently included the Nye Pelig whale account under the heading of men who were swallowed and there certainly is no definite proof at this time that he was swallowed. However, when I first read the Nye Pelig account I was agnostic in regards to whether Mr. Peleg was swallowed or not. Brian and Truthlover are asserting the Mr. Pelig was never swallowed (Brian stated: "However, Peleg wasn’t even swallowed by the sperm whale so why include it here?" ). But seeing as the whale is purported to have taken Mr. Pelig under the water and Mr. Pelig purportedly went unconscious I do not see how you can assert he was never swallowed. I believe I think it is reckless to say he was not swallowed although I have admitted I certainly should have provided commentary that he was not actually reported to have been swallowed and was not precise in my heading. In short, I think my agnosticism regarding the actual issue of Nye Pelig being swallowed at any point is the most judicious position although I am leaning toward the not swallowed position. I have already stated additional commentary regarding some the weakness in regards to the Pelig account and Jonah so I will not reiterate."
EXAMPLE 2:
Brian said below:
"Ken, this is one benefit of using a decent quality library as opposed to poor quality websites, you can examine the actual sources yourself and come to your own conclusions. You should question everything you read, do not take anyone’s word for anything, use you core skills to form your own work."
Brian later said:
"Regarding Bartley, I am at a loss as to why you appear to think that I was correcting you or something. I know that you said that in all likelihood the story was a hoax, I provided the letter from the captain's wife so you could use it to support your suspicion."
I will let the readers decide how candid Brian was being. I will say that I knew Bartley was a hoax and if you check the Investigator Magazine (A Christian/atheist debate magazine) link here
ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
you will see that I knew about Bartley before I even opened the string. I put the Bartley information in my essay from the very start and gave three links regarding it plus offered commentary on it. I did update my initial post because the professed atheist were asking for more evidence and so the initial post became longer.
EXAMPLE 3
Brian was using the illogical fallacy of style over substance. I asked him to stop. He chose not to. I used satire in order to put an end to it. Here is the satire I used can be seen in my question in this forum titled "What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is it allowed and to what extent?" located here: http://
EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent? -->
EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent?
EXAMPLE 4
I felt that Brian was not reading my essay carefully but claiming it was inadequte plus using style over substance argumentation which I pointed out was a logical fallacy.
Here are other examples:
I said:
"Third, a good rule of thumb is that you read a essay carefully before critiqueing it. For example, you complained regarding my belly comment but I clearly said the following:
"I am not sure what an ancient Jew would have considered to be the "belly" of a whale." "
EXAMPLE 5
I believe the purpose of debate is to uncover and clarify the participants knowledge of the truth and not to see who can cast the most insults although I think satire is perfectly acceptable.
Here is an example of conduct unbecoming a Moderator from Brian and I should note that it is not in a forum his moderates but in regards to a debate he participated in that he moderated:
"Ken, I think that most people would say that you are without doubt free from intellect.
Brian."
EXAMPLE 6:
I believe this comment was excessive by Truthlover:
"People are trying to tell you it really wasn't worth reading as thoroughly as Brian read it. Yet you had the audacity to suggest he didn't read it enough."
I have gotten complimentary comments of my essay in forums which have more Christian representation and invariably my essay generates a lot of post to its string by Christians and atheists alike. At EVC forum it generated a second related string.
Now here is what another gentleman had to say about my content at EVC Forum in regards to the Jonah string:
Skeptick
Member
Posts: 176
From: USA
Registered: Feb 2004
Message 25 of 145 02-05-2004 04:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awesome series of posts, Ken!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're doing a fine job on this topic; you go dude. You show no signs of discouragement or loss of control despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to debate these guys on Biblical terms alone. Just like the children of Israel; they saw the pillar of fire, heard God's voice, their shoes/clothes didn't wear out even after 40 years of use, were fed by manna from heaven, and on and on; they were eyewitnesses of the power of God, but yet they still rebelled. The evidence of God was "in their face" but yet they still worshipped "other" gods even though those "gods" showed no evidence of any power or miracle producing ability. Your debating skills and discipline are about the best I've seen on this forum; I'll be keeping up with you!
If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"
I think this clearly shows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not think that it is a moderators place to say what the content of a string is or what cannot be discussed as long as it is not completely frivolous. And since I cited Museum director experimentation, Josephus, a science instructor at Seaworld, a academic paper, etc., I do not think my post could be deemed frivolous.
SUMMARY
I do not think moderators should participate in debates. If modrators are allowed to debate in strings they are debating there should be at least equal representation of atheist moderators and Christian moderators in each forum if they are allowed to debate in a string. Thirdly, if they should abuse their authority I think they should make amends. If they are bold enough to abuse their authority they should be bold enough to apologize for it. Any other measures that would be restitutional in nature should be applied if very easily implemented. For example, if a string was closed prematurely and the author of it was going to introduce new evidence it seems as if the flow of ideas should continue since this is the whole purpose of EVC Forum. Lastly, if possible there should be equal representation of atheist and christian moderators especially in highly charged rooms like "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy".
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]
™ Version 4.2