General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

To everyone, though I'm responding to Faith:Roxrkool deserved to be suspended.He also deserves a POTM.Some points can't be made politely. Sometimes when you stand up and say what needs saying, there's a price to pay.I also think it would be worthwhile for Faith to try a stint as moderator.I also think that thread must be off topic if the title says it's about living like the Amish while the participants are arguing about paleolandscapes, but I don't usually moderate the non-science forums.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It is on topic in that it is an answer to the accusation that fundamentalists reject OE-derived petroleum technology, one of the listed accusations in the OP, that got out of hand because others (jazzns, holmes, roxrkool etc.) refused to accept that this technology is accepted by YEs while yet rejecting the OE theory overall.

Nothing much really changes. Just the subtlety of your attacks and now in the most inappropriate of places. If you want to debate it still, take it to the thread. If not, don't go around talking about our refusal to accept anything. Do you honestly feel that this is appropriate behavior?

---

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)

I appreciate the comments, Percy, and I hear what you are saying about "old offenses," and being new to a forum it takes awhile sometimes to get a handle on the rules, and I had been too inflammatory at times.At the same token, ironically, I think I was probably censured and banned primarily for trying to stick to the OP and argue from the evidence, and that had I been more willing to abandon arguing from the evidence, things would have gone more smoothly in terms of not being banned.This message has been edited by randman, 08-11-2005 11:30 PM

Despite how it might feel to you now, I still suggest you remain focused on producing tight reasoning centered on the evidence.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is primarily directed towards Admin in response to my suspension from yesterday. Since it is not a reply to anything already being discussed on this thread, I’m no sure how to correctly respond to Admin, so I guess I’ll post it as a General Reply.Ok, it was only a 24 hour suspension, and I should probably just let it go. However, I’m not really sure why I was suspended, and since this is a thread dedicated to questioning the motives of the moderatorswellhere it goes.In the Is it Science Forum, schrafinator started a thread entitled Evolutionary science is fraudulent and/or inaccurate? Eventually "Mike the wiz" responded and I responded to his post. He responded to me and I again countered, asking him to support his claim(s), actually trying to keep it on topic. Mike the wiz’s post (no. 11) was flagged as being off topic. However, in my defense, I had already started writing my response (post no. 14) and had no way of knowing that I was not supposed to respond. And my response was again an attempt to draw Mike the wiz back on topic by asking him to show me where scientists reached inaccurate conclusionsthe very essence of schrafinators challenge.I did question why that post (no. 14) was off topic (which I still feel was not) and was simply given a 24 hour suspension. However, holmes did virtually the same (questioned why his post was off topic) and schrafinator responded to holmes, yet neither of them were suspended.If the suspension was because I responded to post 11 after it had been flagged, I will reluctantly accept that, but nonetheless, I feel it was unwarranted, seeing as how I had no way of knowing that I was not suppose to respond. If the suspension was because I questioned why post no. 14 was off topic then that, I feel, is completely unjust. Personally, I feel that a warning would have been niceI was a bit surprised to see post no.25 informing me that I had been suspended.I know it’s a little thing (a 24 hour suspension) but it is not in my nature to accept what I feel are unjust accusations (in this case, that I violated guideline rules). Hell, I’m still mad at a classmate that way back in second grade accused me of stealing her crayon (and I’m 45 now!). (Just so ya knowI did not steal her crayonlol).Anyway, I just wanted to throw a bit of a temper tantrum and try to explain my position.

Hi FliesOnly,I can't believe that after all this time you still won't fess up about the crayon. Evidently all the early indications were there that you'd turn into a discussion board scoflaw. Stories of your crayon history preceded you here, and after you joined I was ready to jump on you at the first sign. More seriously (slightly), don't sweat it. Instead be proud, for you've joined the exclusive community of the formerly suspended, which includes me. Okay, so it isn't so exclusive. The point is, you're one of us now. Okay, seriously this time, sometimes innocent or relatively innocent people get caught up in things when they just happen to be standing in the wrong place. Sorry if it felt unfair, or if it felt like it cast you in a negative light. Everyone here knows that it's the quality of the contributions that count.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin:Good enough for me. Actually, I do feel rather proud to have been suspended at almost the same time as Roxrkool. Good company. I only wish my suspension was any near as deserved as his...if ya know what I mean. I agree that his post should definitely be a POTM...it was an instant classic.Nonetheless, thanks for the reply...I'll try to behave myself from here on out, and as God is my witness...I never touched that flippen crayon!

SHE SHE SHE SHE.

Crap...I even knew that...sorry Roxrkool.

No problem.

Don't mean to be a complainer, but I would really like to see an admin take a look at this thread: Are there any substitutes for inner peace? by wmscott. Throughout the long thread, wmscott has continually refused to address evidence and has instead repeated religious rhetoric and Jehovah's Witness dogma as evidence.A couple of debaters dropped out of the thread a while back becuase of his attitude and tactics, and I'm feeling the same now as well.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If people simply stop talking to such folk they can hold a monologue. If though you choose to respond, just remember it's over on the Faith side. He is perfectly free over there to use "Because I believe so" as full and complete justification for his position.

---

I inadvertantly posted on a Great Debate thread - and I could find no place where the procedures are spelled out. Plus, if we are not supposed to post on a particular thread, why not block us so we can't post there - as you do on the proposed new threads.

Fine but not a big problem. Start by reading the heading of the category. It says, "Interested in one-on-one moderated debate? Contact an admin or moderator to start a topic."It's designed for one on one discussion. We don't limit it because it's never been a big problem.AbE:The procedure is that once two people decide they would like to debate a subject, a thread is started in one of the general forums where the two people can decide on the rules, whether it will be judged, what the scope will be, procedures such as time between replies, total number of replies or any other conditions.Once things are pretty settled, a PNT is proposed, and once accepted, moved to the GD.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-15-2005 08:24 PM