General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel

PaulK, you are welcome to direct comments about the thread to the thread in question. Suffice to say, I think my points were perfectly clear, valid and logical, and not as you have characterized them.

One thing I have noticed is the frequency among certain admins to actually moderate a thread as an admin, even taking admin action and threats of admin action, on threads where they are debating someone as posters. That doesn't seem right, and I suspect if a creationist admin were to engage in such behaviour, that he or she would be banned or their admin status taken away.If you are participating in debate and particularly against the views of another poster, to then ban that poster or threaten to ban that poster, seems inappropiate. I realize that perhaps from the evo's perspective, that it is considered appropiate, but I can tell you that all others do not see that as evenhanded moderation.If a creationist, IDer, or critic of evolution is debating others, I think the if a rules violation comes up, it would be better for the evos on the thread to consider appealing to a non-evo mod to intervene and consider the case to get a more objective perspective on the matter from someone not personally engaged in the debate on the thread.

jar, the post you are responding to is not just concerning the thread where you banned me, and then also commented afterwards on my posts as a poster knowing that I could not respond, having been banned, but is more of a general comment. Others besides you do the same thing as far as moderate the people they are debating. All I am saying is that I think before taking such action, it would be a good idea to appeal to a moderator that doesn't hold your viewpoint so the admin can see whether or not, from the other's viewpoint, the actions are as unreasonable as you think.In fact, I thought it was advised very strongly that posters not moderate the threads and take moderator action against people they were debating, but perhaps that's not the case.On the thread you mentioned, I see no relevance bringing it up. Yes, I did, and that's in the past. I would only add that a great many inappropiate comments were directed towards me when I was very civil for a long time, and yet no moderator action taken at all.

So Omni, is the "trust me" part meant to reinforce the idea that you hate my guts or something....that's not an insult by the way, but I am puzzled by your lengthy post and story...personally, I am glad you are well and think maybe a miracle happened.I only wish you were as vigilant in demanding civility from my critics as you are of me. I think you would find there would be no problems at all then on my threads concerning a lack of civility or any such thing.This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 08:38 PM

adminomni, to be honest, there have been a number of threads suggesting that all critics of evolution are intellectually dishonest, hence liars.Do you want me to go back over the threads and show you examples of serious lack of civility or is that required here?By the way, I wonder who said this: or how about this gem of an accusation from you? You gave a touching personal story, which is bewildering considering you included it in comments that come off as flat out hate, imo.This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 05:02 AM

I am a little unsure on how to take your comments here as no, I did not expect, ask for and want to see some of the comments on my behaviour on that thread rehashed. I especially did not consider adminbrian's atrocious mischaracterization as appropiate on the admin announcement thread, nor jar's comments here, nor omni's.Despite what many may think, in a debate forum, it is likely that one side will eventually begin to respond in-kind to a degree with similar language as the other side. I have noted that with others, including Faith, and yet somehow it seems the majority of mods and evos somehow just see, for the most part, their critics as the ones being unreasonable, or ignorant, "intellectually dishonest" or many of the other various charges continually levelled at those that disagree with their worldview.I think the situation here seems to be that it's always considered the critic of evolution, for the most part, that is somehow being unreasonable, not supporting their points, etc, etc,....when in reality that is not the case. Fairness requires recognition that demanding civility, supporting facts, rules, etc,...from only one side on a thread is not a recipe for success, nor appropiate action.Edit to add a one-time opinion of your's some time ago, but a little unsure on how to put it out there without being offensive. Please do not take this as criticism, but just that in some respects, I think in the past and perhaps present as well, recognize there can be a one-sideness here, which after all was adminchristian's stated reason for reinstating me. The idea, I thought, was not to justify my comments, but to recognize that there was misbehaviour, a pattern of it even, directed towards me while I was civil, and it went unchecked...but maybe you can clarify since you are privy to moderator discussions. This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 03:03 AM

I guess you could have fooled me with that one, considering the voluminous personal attacks and charges, even whole threads, directed at me...all making it personal, and yes, not just at my views, but at me personally, my character, etc,....The quote I gave to omni was not meant to suggest it was the same as calling someone a liar, but at the same time, I think the idea that his posts and tone have never "darkened" the board was the overall point, not to try to dredge up everything he may have said in the past.All I ask for is equal moderation. Someone throws out personal insults towards me repeatedly, and you ignore it, repeatedly, it does seem a little biased and unfair to come back and call me poison because eventually I responded in a less civil manner.I also think the claim of questioning motives works both ways. Evos here routinely and frequently question the motives of anyone that disagrees with them, asserting that people only reject evolution based out of things like ignorance, religious prejudice, etc,....instead of analysis of the facts. Yet, if I or someone else raise possible motives for evos in general not agreeing that evolutionary theory is weak or wrong, I am accussed of being paranoid, of advocating a conspiracy, blah, blah, blah......Somehow then it seems acceptable to the evos to accuse creationists and IDers of taking part in an anti-science conspiracy and that's perfectly reasonable, but don't anyone dare say the same back the other way..... No, that's not what I am arguing, and frankly that is highly offensive. I object to your characterization of me as poison, etc,....and feel it is highly biased and I have given and can give repeated instances of that bias. I am not defending calling someone a liar, or being uncivil. I am defending the mischaracterization of me as the problem. If everyone is going 70, and you give me a ticket for going 70 (not 90), fine. But don't go about claiming I was the only one goong 70; that you are working hard to make sure the other traffic is not speeding when you watched dozens of people go right by you, happened to be friends of your's, and then I come along and you nail me.Yea, I was speeding, but I the only poison committed by me was following the lead of your friends.This message has been edited by randman, 04-02-2006 04:12 PM

Have you ever accussed people of ignoring something in a manner that reaches a point of lying jar?Have you?I never denied my comments and I will pledge never to call an individual here a liar again.It seems you are upset because I pointed out you were commenting as a poster after you banned me permanently, knowing I could not respond.....or am I missing something?