General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

I think there is a fundamental (no pun intended) problem at the heart of EvC Forum, at least as far as the Evolution vs Creation science discussions are concerned.Let's take the YEC belief in a young Earth as the prime example. This was shown to be wrong something like 200 years ago by people who were both Christians and believers in a young Earth. Although they had no way to establish the actual age of the Earth they worked out that beyond a shadow of a doubt it was much, much older than 6000 years.The same is true for the Flood. There is no evidence for it in the geological record - in fact there is categoric evidence it never happened.There will be an endless supply of (mostly) completely unqualified people who want to argue these issues but because the evidence is so overwhelming there can be no real scientific debate.The real problem is that these people have the view that if the bible is not totally true in every last detail then none of it is and their faith will be destroyed - and their faith is probably the single most important thing in their lives. Is it really possible to have a sensible debate with someone who has that level of emotional investment in their side of the argument?As far as I can see the inevitable consequence of this is that you are going to have to deal with people who can't accept being shown they are wrong. Isn't the end result of enforcing the evidence and rebuttal guidelines going to be that there are no creos left, because they've all either had to admit they were wrong or they've left/been banned?Having said all that EvC is one of my favourite places on the Web. I have two selfish reasons for hoping you manage to attract and keep creationists here. First I've learned loads of stuff from the people who know what they're talking about (this is true in both the Science and Religion areas). Second creos say the funniest things I still get a giggle out of:

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

LOL. It seems to me that even if you're an old earth and old universe creo and you debate alternative science you still get banned or restricted. You gotta talk thee science here or you eventually find yourself on the missfit poster list. I went about two years without a suspension. Percy seems to be either uptight these days, regimenting a stricter board, or both. Watch out!

quote:

---

It seems to me that even if you're an old earth and old universe creo and you debate alternative science you still get banned or restricted.

---

The EvC members who actually debate using the tenets of science in the science forums do not attract moderator attention.Those who think they are debating science but are not, and have had it explained to them exactly how they fail to remain within the tenets of science yet refuse to correct themselves do attract moderator attention.

Can I suggest that as a means of putting off hit and run posters (the ones that just want to link to their own site and leg it) - that any links are changed to "removed by admin".I know it's not a major problem it but it should help to reduce some of the repeat offenders.

I remember this one old earth evo who got banned after his repeated pseudo-scientific views being thrown all over the place (not rocket). His name is somehow associated with fire.But anyhow, we sometimes do get evos who don't know what empirical science is.

I've just ploughed my way throught the posts that have accumulated on the meteorite thread and also the suspensions and bannings thread. While I agree that moderators should take steps when insults are used, I have great difficulty in agreeing with the suspension of roxrkool.Has it really escaped admin's attention that Faith had been hurling insults for much of the thread? I know that we do make allowances for YECs who have difficulty in handling the mountains of data hurled at them, but should we also not make allowances for the other side of the debate when they've been subjected to derisory comments, "hypotheses" based on total ignorance of the subject they insist on pontificating on?Every one of us has a patience threshold and the thread has shown just how patient people have been in the face of Faith's illogical and totally absurd schemes, not only that, but most of the impatience has actually been shown by Faith.I exited the thread a while back as I could see the way the wind was blowing. Faith would be allowed to continue with half-baked ideas with no attempt at providing evidence or even demonstrating that she was even bothering to read most of the replies to her. I don't have that much patience and so I got out. However, the whole thread infuriated me, mainly because no serious attempts were made to rein Faith in when she flouted forum guidelines time and time again. Roxrkool steps out of line once and is suspended.Yes, Faith is intelligent and articulate, but that's no excuse for flouting forum guidelines, nor is is a good reason for allowing the guidelines to be flouted. I'm sure that roxrkool is just as intelligent and articulate, the only thing he lacks seems to be habitual rudeness which appears to be Faith's standard MO.Please, Admin, can we get the playing field a bit less like the north face of the Eiger? Scientists on this board are insulted time and time again, their honesty is called into question, their intelligence, their hard work and their years of experience are hand-waved away. Not only that, but their patient attempts at explanations are treated with derision and flippancy. Is it surprising that people lose their cool eventually?Edited for a really dumb typo!This message has been edited by Trixie, 05-27-2005 05:21 PM

Forget it - Faith has a special "say what the fuck you like" pass as established last time I posed this question.Why bother discussing it any further? Faith operates under a different set of rules than the rest of us and you just need to accept it. You'd would be better just not engaging her in debate.

All I can say is that I agree with most everything you say. Today was the first time I checked in with the meteor thread. I didn't realize Faith had become active in a science topic again. I only read back about 30 posts. I'll try to keep a closer eye on Faith. It's been a busy week and she slipped under my radar.Rox deserves credit for doing yeoman's work in the face of profound and willful ignorance and an attitude toward science that would feel right at home in the Dark Ages, but he knows he can't write posts like that. I've said many times, one guidelines violation doesn't justify another.My goal is to achieve balance in holding members to the Forum Guidelines. Ideally this would mean each side was equally happy with me, but I guess I'll have to settle for each side being equally mad.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Over three weeks ago in Message 142 of the predecessor thread to this one I pointed out that Faith is, by her own admission, only staying around because she's allowed to throw insults by the Admins.My last paragraph in that message: After the Meteor Thread I lean even more towards the "outrageous argument troll" opinion than I did.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY) -->http://EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY) -->EvC Forum: Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)< !--UE-->
5/26/05 - Admin suspends peaceharris: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: May, 2005, Posts of the Month -->http://EvC Forum: May, 2005, Posts of the Month -->EvC Forum: May, 2005, Posts of the Month< !--UE-->
5/26/05 - minnemooseus gives peaceharris POTM for various contributions to the same topic. I commended peaceharris for the effort. I truly thought he was doing his best to present scientific arguments in the topic. The problem is, he is so (IMO) massively incompetent in understanding the principles of geology that his points of science tended to merge into some sort of fantasy. Or something like that.Bottom line - My opinion is that the peaceharris suspension was problematic. I may well be missing something, but my impression is that Admin suspended him for something along the lines of "failing to debate science in good faith". My impression is that peaceharris was "debating science as best he could".So, was peaceharris suspended for talking really bad geology?Comments?MooseAdded by edit: Further reading - A message from Admin, 9/30/04.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-28-2005 02:42 AM

I am moving towards being more of a lurker than a poster but let me offer this:My knowledge of geology is woeful BUT even with that handicap it was clear that PH's problem was more fundamental than simply his lack of subject knowledge. When you have a poster who thinks that a report from an undergraduate reporter with no expertise making an off-the-cuff remark that something looks like carries the same weight as detailed survey work by experts, what are you suppose to do?Is such a person ever going to get it?

Charles Knight has pretty much hit the problem on the head. Continuing to engage Peaceharris along his chosen line of argument would have required explaining why the phrase "cliffs the color of coal" in a travel article does not constitute evidence of coal. Someone who needs this explained either isn't being serious or doesn't belong here or has some kind of problem that I'm not interested in making EvC Forum's problem.Early on in the Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion thread I complemented Peaceharris for focusing on the evidence, see Message 38. He consistently supported his points with images and links, more so than any other Creationist who has ever been here. Like you, I was impressed. But as his points were addressed he began ignoring rebuttals and inquiries, repeating unsupported assertions, and finally began posting irrelevant links and images. The final straw came in Peaceharris's Message 169 when he combined insult and ignominy by calling Randy's arguments stupid, by casting serious doubt that he would sincerely address rebuttals, and by insisting that the description "cliffs the color of coal" in a travel article constituted evidence of coal.I agree he was probably doing the best he could, but I suspended him because the best he could manage was to employ the strategy I call "I'm frustrated so I'm going to waste everyone's time by making outrageous arguments and sticking with them no matter what".The suspension was only for 24 hours. It was intended to make clear the point that EvC Forum doesn't negotiate with each member as to the level of adherence to the Forum Guidelines they'll be held to. EvC Forum *does* have standards, and the problem for moderators is to enforce them objectively without being influenced by the fact that some offenders cut a more sympathetic figure than others. To return to my old speed limit analogy, the upstanding citizen deserves no more a break for speeding than does the ne'er-do-well.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thank you for your response.I fully understand why you and the other admins no longer want to be posting detailed reasonings for suspensions, but I think this situation was unusual and did merit a little extra exploration.I have added a footnote to my peaceharris POTM nomination, targeting this discussion.I repeat again something from the POTM message: In its own twisted sort of way, I think that the "Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion" topic has been something special because of peaceharris's contributions. It illustrates how/why the mainstream geologic thoughts on the matter are as strong as they are.So, is peaceharris in any position to say anything else at that topic, other than "I give up"?Mooseps: A link at the suspension message, leading to this discussion, might be a good thing. For some reason, Adminnemooseus is unable to place such a link.Added by edit: Do'h - I have just now found Admins suspension message at the "Flood not the Cause of the Grand Canyon -- Not a Biased Opinion" topic. The suspension was explained at that location, but that explanation was not linked to in the "Suspensions and Bannings (MESSAGES BY ADMIN ONLY)" topic.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-28-2005 01:47 PM

I think the above is an excellent assessment of peaceharris' efforts. A much better effort would only be possible if peaceharris was more knowledgeable of geologic methods and principles. Unfortunately, I don't believe peace thinks he is lacking any knowledge at all - a typical YEC mentality.Peace is a rare YEC because he is at least attempting to use physical evidence to bolster his position. He's failing, but at least he's trying. And similar to what moose stated, it's peace's unusual effort that has transformed the Grand Canyon thread into the perfect illustration of why early Creationists dumped the YEC position.Honestly, the only thing peace can do at this point is concede the fact that he really doesn't know enough about geology to argue his points. He knows enough to ask the right questions at times, but not enough to understand the right answers.As for Peace's suspension, I think it was earned. Adhering stubbornly to a position that has been shown to be false several times over, stifles the discussion and frustrates the entire group. Suspensions are good for reflecting back on your arguments, as well as a cooling off period - at least that's how I see them. I don't necessarily see them as punishment.

Admin writes:

quote:

---

The onus is upon you to figure out what I want, not the other way around.

---

Realizing that this will get me suspended....With this statement, Percy, you show yourself to be an ass.You're the one with the power, Percy. You're the one who is supposedly trying to maintain a respectful atmosphere. How on earth do you expect that to happen when you tell the readership that it is their responsibility to read your mind?I understand that you are trying to avoid a long, drawn out conversation regarding this. There are the forum guidelines, they need to be followed, etc. But who else are we to go to in order to get a ruling on just what constitutes a violation of those guidelines? You are judge, jury, and executioner, Percy. Don't you think your constituency deserves to ask you what is going on inside your head?I'm not saying you have to do it here on the board. If it would be a distraction, take it offline. When a decision is reached (and I'm not saying that the person arguing against your interpretation has to agree with you), you can come back here and summarize the issue and why you are interpreting your rules the way you are. It will allow everybody else to know your mind so that, hopefully, such violations can be avoided in the future.But to say that it is our responsibility to figure out what you want shows a severe lack of respect for the people you claim to be working for.There's an experiment regarding the effect of known rewards for a given behaviour. Some animals were rewarded every time they pressed the lever. Some animals had a reward system based on a pattern...not every time, but it could be determined that the reward would happen every second or third time. And some had a completely random output of reward.After acclimatization, the reward was turned off. Those who had the reward constantly learned the quickest to stop pressing the lever. Those who had to press the lever a few times before getting the reward took longer.But those who had the random rewards never stopped pressing the lever. They learned that rewards were capricious and arbitrary and couldn't be trusted to be based upon their actions.Do you think that's the message you want to send to the participants here? That at any moment you can swoop down and punish them and that they are undeserving of any explanation?That the "onus is upon [them] to figure out what [you] want"?Remember, you don't even remember what the issue is. Wouldn't it have been better to simply let it go at, "I'm sorry, but since I do not have any recollection of the specifics at this time, I am unable to give you the assistance that you are requesting. Please know that if you can come up with a specific example or point me to a specific thread, I will do my best to explain why I feel the way I feel. Please know that it may be different than what I had considered previously because I am coming at it from a fresh perspective and for any inconsistencies, I apologize in advance."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.