Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 226 of 304 (413736)
08-01-2007 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:15 AM


Re: IamJoseph
In fairness to Nosy, IamJoseph is also irrational and abusive.
And he doesn't seem to be making much of an effort to explain himself despite repeated warnings that his writing doesn't make sense.
So how do you propose that we deal with people who continually disrupt threads with nonsensical posts ? From a moderation point of view suspension is a solution even if it isn't a nice one or fair if seen as a penalty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 227 of 304 (413782)
08-01-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:15 AM


Re: IamJoseph
arachnophilia writes:
AdminNosy writes:
You seem to have a struggle with English (among other things). Rather than letting you continue to waste others time I'm going to give you 2 days to try to write what you have to say. Then take it to a friend or 3 to get help making it comprehensible.
Make good use of your time off.
to be honest, it's sort of insulting...
Yeah, I agree, and when I first saw your message a few hours ago I was disappointed that we'd suspended IamJoseph. He's one of the active creationist participants during a slow summer, and losing him has an impact.
But then I read the thread. When Adminastasia posted this generally (i.e., to no one specifically) in Message 68:
Adminastasia in Message 68 writes:
:Seeds? Books?
The thread is about CHARTS!
Stop it, or I am going to learn how to do suspensions.
Only IamJoseph responded with this in Message 70:
IamJoseph in Message 70 writes:
Fire away. Or change the name of this thread.
I won't call attention to all the errors and nonsense that you've already called attention to in that thread (Genes and rapid extinction), and I appreciate the great effort you've made to help IamJoseph understand where and in what ways he's unintelligible and not making sense, and maybe you interpret his posts differently from me, but what I see is persistent restatements of gibberish that use responses as points of departure while for the most part ignoring their contents.
IamJoseph has been asked on several occasions if English is not his native language, and he's always vehemently responded that English is indeed his native language.
It would be fine by me if AdminNosy reduced IamJoseph's suspension to time served so that you could continue to try to see if you can make a light bulb go on, but given his history of both antagonism towards moderators and inability to express himself clearly, I can't strongly argue for it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2007 11:53 AM Admin has not replied
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 1:48 PM Admin has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 228 of 304 (413787)
08-01-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Admin
08-01-2007 11:40 AM


Suspention of IaJ
Thinking about it I'd agree that one big lump of suspension isn't the best way to progress. It takes more attention to keep giving little ones but if others will watch him when I'm away that may be best.
I don't think I can just reduce it now so I'll remove it.
However, my opinion is that there are more serious problems than simple inability to communicate and that valuable time is being wasted. If those individuals want to do that: well, good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 11:40 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 12:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 304 (413798)
08-01-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by NosyNed
08-01-2007 11:53 AM


Re: Suspention of IaJ
He was suspended on another thread (Message 126)
And immediately after it was up he was back continuing his off-topic comments (Message 128), which he continued to do in spite of several admin warnings on that thread (Message 131, Message 139, Message 141, Message 146).
It's like he can't be bothered to find out what a thread is about, and he just starts posting in the manner of a troll or a spammer.
I've suggested he start a thread to pursue his pet concept, but he hasn't done that, preferring to annoy and disrupt other threads.
I'd say let the suspension stand -- he's earned it on two threads at least -- AND give him a warning that restrictions from forums will follow unless he conforms to the rules others abide by.
And WHEN he fails to comply then start restricting him. Let him have one thread to participate in ... on his pet topic ...
Otherwise you will have good threads buried in garbage.
Thanks.
Edited by RAZD, : -

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by NosyNed, posted 08-01-2007 11:53 AM NosyNed has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 230 of 304 (413812)
08-01-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Admin
08-01-2007 11:40 AM


Re: IamJoseph
I won't call attention to all the errors and nonsense that you've already called attention to in that thread (Genes and rapid extinction), and I appreciate the great effort you've made to help IamJoseph understand where and in what ways he's unintelligible and not making sense, and maybe you interpret his posts differently from me, but what I see is persistent restatements of gibberish that use responses as points of departure while for the most part ignoring their contents.
well, agreed -- had the suspension been for being off-topic, i would have totally agreed with it. though it probably should have applied to me as well, but i was at least trying to drag it back on topic. kicking and screaming.
i'm just not sure that suspending the opposition is a good debate technique.
i know you and i have talked about this before. it's been a point i've argued for a long time. i think i figured out what bugs me so much, last night. look at a forum like uncommondescent. basically, and ideological wankhouse -- if you don't toe the religious line, or you dare to challenge to the "goddidit" consensus, or you have any scientific credentials at all, you're banned. for life. you end up with all creationists nodding along, and nothing actually going anywhere.
i don't want us to be like them, not even in the slightest. but it seems like we suspend and ban an awful lot of creationists. yes, i know, at the heart of it all, our rules are fair. sometimes i'm not so sure they're applied in an even-handed way. but mostly, the fault is in the rule-breaker. and the lack of creationist content on this site makes questions like IAJ rather difficult. do we suspend him for not following the rules of debate? do we let him continue, because he's obviously trying to say something?
from a strictly ideological standpoint, it might even be better to let people like IAJ just go off on whatever. if there's 20 or 30 people on one side that sound rational, and one on the other that sounds incoherent... well maybe suspending him is the best thing you can do for him.
i don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 11:40 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 4:20 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 231 of 304 (413849)
08-01-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:15 AM


Re: IamJoseph
arachno writes:
it's also quite possible that english is not his native language
I asked him this before, too, and he answered that he was born crying in English.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 232 of 304 (413861)
08-01-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 1:48 PM


Re: IamJoseph
I've pondered often on these issues, they're all good points, no need to say more.
One thing I will add, though, is that I am frequently puzzled by the creationist willingness to let total loons advocate for their side. If there were an evolutionist here arguing determinedly for Lamarckism he'd soon be drowning in rebuttals from evolutionists. But very strangely, at least to me, creationists see little or no problem with what their nuttier adherents say. How do they know these guys aren't really evolutionists posing as creationists to make creationism look bad?
Oh, and I'll add one more thing. I'm also puzzled by our inability to attract articulate informed creationists. Most of them don't even understand that the goal of creation science is to eliminate religious references. If my school board ever held a hearing about creationism, I'd definitely invite all these guys to speak because their inability to keep references to God and Bible out of their arguments would be the most convincing evidence possible of the religious rather than scientific nature of creationism.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 1:48 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Taz, posted 08-01-2007 5:07 PM Admin has replied
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 6:44 PM Admin has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 233 of 304 (413870)
08-01-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Admin
08-01-2007 4:20 PM


Re: IamJoseph
Admin writes:
I'm also puzzled by our inability to attract articulate informed creationists.
There have only been a few "articulate informed creationists" I have conversed with over the years. The pattern that I have picked up from these guys is that they are usually smart enough (smarter than me most of the time) to compose their messages in riddle-like style to make the rest of us put extra effort into interpreting their posts. You and I both know that with enough command of the English language, one could write academically coherent literature while making the over message a one big riddle to support just about anything, and this is the tactic that these so-called "articulate informed creationists" use to support their position.
Most of them don't even understand that the goal of creation science is to eliminate religious references.
Percy, step back for a moment and think this through. Is it really possible to advocate creationism without referencing god? Might as well demand that we advocate evolution without referencing natural selection or genetic drift.
If my school board ever held a hearing about creationism, I'd definitely invite all these guys to speak because their inability to keep references to God and Bible out of their arguments would be the most convincing evidence possible of the religious rather than scientific nature of creationism.
The question is do these guys exist at all? How many rocks do we have to look under before we can say to ourselves that these guys are just a figment of our hopeful imagination?
Added by edit. Might as well reply to the rest of the post.
One thing I will add, though, is that I am frequently puzzled by the creationist willingness to let total loons advocate for their side.
Me, too, actually. For years now I have been asking the question to the creationists I know. Why do they tolerate the crackpots among their ranks? I have come to suspect that, even though they don't say it outright knowing they'd be ridiculed for it, they believe in the crackpot ideas enough to allow someone else to say it for them.
Take a look at our president, for example. It's obvious that the guy believes in the genesis account literally. He also knows that he'd be labeled a loon if he ever talks about it.
If there were an evolutionist here arguing determinedly for Lamarckism he'd soon be drowning in rebuttals from evolutionists. But very strangely, at least to me, creationists see little or no problem with what their nuttier adherents say. How do they know these guys aren't really evolutionists posing as creationists to make creationism look bad?
Because deep down inside they actually believe all the crackpot ideas that these nuts proclaim. I've talked face to face to some of these crackpots before. They actually believe this stuff wholeheartedly.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 4:20 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-01-2007 9:56 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 237 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 10:01 PM Taz has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 304 (413909)
08-01-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Admin
08-01-2007 4:20 PM


Re: IamJoseph ... Rob, Simple, MartinV and others .... and ANY off-topic post?
I've pondered often on these issues, they're all good points, no need to say more.
First off, with the re-admission of several banned members, it would appear that the "showcase" forum is no longer necessary, and we should await the re-admission of randman ... and any others from the personal soapbox crowd.
Second, the question is how to control someone who posts similar nonsense on multiple threads -- not just IAJ, but anyone, like Rob, Simple, MartinV, etc -- so that many otherwise good threads are overwhelmed by these issues and the responses to them.
While outright banning doesn't seem to be working (or in the best interest of having an open debate), and the showcase forum seems to be overly restrictive (invitees only), I think a compromise could be made by restricting offending posters to a single forum similar to showcase, but one that is open to anyone to respond.
I'd also let anyone start a new thread in this forum {Soapbox?} similar to the way they are allowed in {Coffeehouse}, letting anyone comment on new threads, with good ones promoted to other forums when deemed appropriate by the mods.
When a member becomes restricted, the threads where infractions occur could be copied to this forum for continued discussions related to the infraction without affecting the original thread (which could be closed temporarily, or off-topic posts hidden like spam posts, to defuse the situation).
This could also be an automatic response for any off-topic post by any member, allowing continued discussion of the off-topic concept. The restrictions could be time-limited similar to current suspensions.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : add MartinV for [msg=-5,776,-13] ...
Edited by RAZD, : hiding off-topic posts in original threads.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Admin, posted 08-01-2007 4:20 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2007 7:59 PM RAZD has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 235 of 304 (413915)
08-01-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
08-01-2007 6:44 PM


This all seems rather complicated or ...
Hang on, aren't those the rules to Calvinball?!
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 6:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2007 10:08 PM Wounded King has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 236 of 304 (413931)
08-01-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taz
08-01-2007 5:07 PM


Take your content and turn it into a new topic?
Your message has been POTM'ed by Buzsaw and seconded by Minnemooseus.
I think that some variation on its content would make for a good new topic, which I would suggest go into the "Is It Science?" forum. It would suggest a topic title along the lines of "What is an Articulate Informed Creationist".
Care to submit such a thing to the Proposed New Topics?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taz, posted 08-01-2007 5:07 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2007 11:03 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 237 of 304 (413932)
08-01-2007 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taz
08-01-2007 5:07 PM


Re: IamJoseph
Tazmanian Devil writes:
Percy, step back for a moment and think this through. Is it really possible to advocate creationism without referencing god?
The short answer is yes! Of course! Indubitably! Absolutely!
That was the whole point of creation science, to remove references to God and Bible from the story of creation in order to pass muster in public school science classrooms. I've been part of this debate for well over 20 years, and creation science advocates used to abound, but a sea change occurred after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science was just Genesis dressed up in scientific sounding terms. It took a long time for intelligent design to push aside creation science as the alternative to evolution, but once it did then sites like this saw many fewer creation science advocates and far more ID advocates. This board witnessed this change in emphasis in 2003. The whole purpose of ID was to succeed where creationism did not by advancing a position at even further remove from God and Bible.
With the demise of ID in Dover we're now experiencing a dearth of ID advocates, but creation science advocates have not returned. Instead all we're getting is loons and preachers. I feel this indicates that creationism is temporarily in disarray. The primary strategy advocated for now by the major creationist organizations is "teach all the evidence," but it's left the creationist soldiers who come here with no ammunition, so they fire what they got, God and Bible and nonsense.
But the important point is that, yes, there was definitely a time when creationists thought it very important that creationism be seen as a legitimate science. The failures of creation science and ID to accomplish this seems to have discouraged them from even trying, and countering such attempts was my entire reason for creating this website, to explore creationism's claim to be every bit as much science as evolution. If we've won and only preachers and loons are left, then there's no reason for the site.
But we haven't won, of course. The creationists are, as I said, only *temporarily* in disarray. Who knows what'll come next, but there'll be something.
As it seems to be far to significant to be buried in this topic, I have suggested that this subthread become its own topic (see message 236). Might we put further discussion in this topic on hold until that new topic is (hopefully) launched? - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taz, posted 08-01-2007 5:07 PM Taz has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 238 of 304 (413933)
08-01-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Wounded King
08-01-2007 7:59 PM


Re: This all seems rather complicated or ...
Hang on, aren't those the rules to Calvinball?!
LOL - it does seem like that is the case these days eh? But seriously I don't think:
(a) relegating a poster - and copying the pertinent threads - to a "Soapbox" forum would be any harder to do than current suspensions and posting of the same on the pertinent threads, or
(b) deflating off-topic post visibility in the original threads in a manner similar to spam posts would be any harder than posting large "OFF TOPIC DO NOT RESPOND" signs on such posts (while still preserving those comments in the "Soapbox" forum copy for those who do want to pursue them).
Treating ALL off-topic posts and posters the same would also be more visibly just system of moderation - the length of detention dependent on the severity (number or repetitions) of the offense.
A strict interpretation of this would have put several "evo" posters in detention for the "Most convincing evidence for creation theory" thread (... and limited the thread to maybe 4 or so posts giving "evidence" ...), possibly letting other "creos" participate before reaching closure.
It may even make moderation easier as once a thread is in "Soapbox" it wouldn't need further moderation for further offenses.
Just my thoughts
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2007 7:59 PM Wounded King has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 304 (413941)
08-01-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Adminnemooseus
08-01-2007 9:56 PM


Re: Take your content and turn it into a new topic?
Hi Moose. Thanks for the 2nd in POM. I would propose such a topic in PNT if you wish since I'd like to submit a respone to Admin's recent message to Taz but agree that more on this would be off topic here.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-01-2007 9:56 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2007 12:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 240 of 304 (413955)
08-02-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
08-01-2007 11:03 PM


4 messages quoted in "Proposed New Topic"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2007 11:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024