General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Even more controversially, why not have more scientific topics directly relevant to evolution? Those are even easier to provide evidence for given the increasing availability of research papers online.I suppose the problem is that people will only talk about what interests them. If all the frequent posters want to do is discuss politics then no amount of administrational intervention will stop them, up until the point that it is so restrictive that they go elsewhere.TTFN,WK

2nd Generation preacher. I have been studying and preaching the gospel for over thirty years. I dare say there are no evolutionists in here that have studied the Bible as long or as in depth as I have. As to your other query, eveyone is capable of commenting on the Bible. The same cannot always be said as to their qualifications.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

This is not a debate forum. Please limit comments to discussing procedure.

---

DELETED BY AUTHOR - OFFTOPIC.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 25-Jul-2005 01:39 PM

Let's not get into debating individual qualification.

---

I'd say that sounds like a pretty poor reason to eject someone form a forum. People shouldn't have to moderate their discussion based on what might "offend" someone. The logic of their argument should be left to stand on its own.Of course, it would be perfectly reasonable to insist that, should somone claim that Jesus was gay or a bigot, that they provide supporting evidence for such an assertion. If they cannot provide a rational argument, then it is simply Christian bashing, and should carry consequences. This, I think, is more in touch with the forum rules.

Fine, procedure then. After searching through a fair number of topics it is quite obvious that several admins have an undisguised bias when it comes to Christians. I have noticed that these admins direct comments on perceived violations at the Christians personally rather than using a general reply which would be better applied to all posters. I am constantly being asked questions by evolutionists in an improper forum for the discussion they wish to engage in. The admins rarely raise an eyebrow. Just as soon as I offer a reply, these admins are quick to point out that... Perhaps the Admin Director should be more involved, and even consider getting a better class of sub-admins.Before joining EVC I had been warned of extreme bias towards Christians as well as strict rule enforcement with Christians while evolutionists are generally given a pass for similar violations. I would have hoped for a much more professional approach in applying rules and guidelines than I have been witness to thus far.I have no problem keeping discussions in a proper forum. Perhaps the Admin Director needs to reinforce that same line of reasoning when choosing sub-admins. Certain sub-admins are not performing their admin duties in what I would consider a fair and honest manner.EVC appears to be a well designed site and it would be unfortunate if it were to garner the reputation of being nothing more that a bastion of refuge for Christian bashing evolutionists. Let it be understood that I will no longer respond to any post in any forum in which the topic of discussion is not being followed other than to inform any individual that their post is off topic.I realize that this may leave alot of posts unanswered but if the rules are to be followed they should be followed by all and these sub-admins should be admonished when they do not monitor any forum in a totally professional manner. I gather, (based on pictures available), that certain sub-admins are quite young and so the low level of professional maturity and courtesy in performing their admin duties is understandable, though it should not be viewed as a valid excuse for their behaviour.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

This is all very interesting but you seem to fitting to a sub-class of creationist that we have here.1) turn up2) Post one or two oneliners.3) Play barrack room lawyer at great length. Lengthy posts about the rules and regulations.4) leaveAre you actually going to do any..well..debating while you are here?

Deleted by Rahvin - not a debate thread.This message has been edited by Rahvin, 07-25-2005 03:00 PM

Message 143 is an inappropriate post for this thread. Please refer to Message 138 for proper procedure.Self-appointed ChristianAdmin EltonianJames

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

Guys,To open a new topic in which to discuss the issues that are appearing here is a fairly easy procedure.We all know that this is not a debate forum, so please resist the temptation to reply to a message here.Don't make me take the light sabre out AdminBrian.

The way Percy put it, it wasn't about offense, but about what's considered to be accepted knowledge.

Knowledge doesn't have to be accepted knowledge to be offered in support of a point. What's most important is that the knowledge be intelligently and rationally presented, and be supported with argumentation and/or evidence. For example, I don't think it would be acceptable to argue in the religious forums, "Jesus didn't even exist, so he couldn't possibly have said what is claimed," without first providing strong evidence or argument that Jesus didn't actually exist. To not do so would be equivalent in the science forums to arguing, "Well, the Big Bang never happened, so science's claims about cosmological origins are false," without first providing strong evidence or argument that the Big Bang never actually happened. Or at least supporting the claim when asked.About bulletin board lawyers, several times a year we do get people who join and then spend most of their time complaining about the rules or the moderation or whatever. Suffice to say that the weight given to such complaints is a function of the credibility built through participation here over time. To do otherwise would be to be drift with the latest breeze.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

(pst admins. i'm discussing and defending your procedures. if this is the wrong place, make a mention and i'll propose a new topic) really? a good portion of the admins are christians themselves. jar, phatboy, hangdawg, truthlover, and i think brian are all christians and admins.now, they don't take to well to christian trolls -- but we generally don't take too well to trolls here period. yes. when someone violates a rule or whathaveyou, the same custom is followed as it is for everything else. reply to the person it's directed at. both the creationists and the evolution"ists" around here are firm believers in the LRRB (little red reply button). keep in mind that admins also have the priveledge of editting posts themselves. if they REALLY wanted to be nasty about something, they could very easily remove the contents of your message. very rarely do they do that though. in fact, the only sure way to get it done is to post in the suspension thread. (i've done it before) people respond to comments. if you say something that warrants a response, and people comment, you can't complain that they did. if you don't wanna discuss the subject -- don't bring it up. you've already met our current outspoken radical fundamentalist christian of the board, faith. in the interest of keeping discussions interesting (and at the request of several other members, i think including myself) she stays here, despite NUMEROUS rule violations. these include outright nastiness, ad hominem attacks, unsupported assertions -- all kinds of stuff. but faith is an interesting person, and fuels some very good debates. we know she means well, and is generally trying. and so she stays.yet there have been numerous complaints that "evolutionists" are held to much lower standards (look back a few pages in this thread if you don't believe me). they are suspended much quicker, from all forums, and for longer periods of time.the fact that she's around proves you wrong. the admins do try to be accomodating on an almost affirmitive action basis so we can have a more equal debate here. but also keep in mind that tugging on superman's cape is a bad idea. accuse the mods of this or that too much, and you're asking for trouble -- see the lawyer post. actually, we christian evolutionists are the ones getting bashed most often -- we have to debate against BOTH sides. and there are christians here. you just need to learn that we don't sit around and just affirm each others' beliefs all day, posting whatever dogmatic sermon we heard in church this week. we actually debate those beliefs, the text itself, and interpretations.for instance, mr ex-nihilo and i are currently duking it out in a great debate over the definition, origin, m.o., and uses of evil in the divine master plan. we're both christians, and we agree on a lot of stuff. but it's still not a light discussion of "jesus is swell, don't you just love him?" we're actually trying to get to the bottom of two very different view points -- and i suspect meet somewhere in the middle at the truth.if the site were anti-christian, do you suspect they would allow such in-depth debate of christian (well, jewish) scripture and its interpretations, completely absent of any "the bible is a fraud!" remarks?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-26-2005 01:26 AM

---

אָרַח

I am formally requesting moderator intervention in the Does Islam need a Reformation? with regards to CanadianSteve's most recent post Message 63.In particular, the claim was made in Message 4 of the following: References were later given for the war verses in post Message 6I responded in Message 9 with a rebuttal to CS's source showing that the context of the verses explicitly show them to be about defensive aggression. I requested that the context of the verses in his source be address. Instead I recieved the most recent post linked above which does nothing to address the specific challange of the war verses in the context of the rest of the suras.Thank you.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)