Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:54 PM
25 online now:
edge, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,973 Year: 12,009/19,786 Month: 1,790/2,641 Week: 299/708 Day: 74/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 63 of 300 (239517)
09-01-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by CK
09-01-2005 11:07 AM


Re: I will defend your (randman) right to...
While working on the transition to a dedicated server I haven't been able to observe Randman's recent behavior very closely, but what Nosy says is fairly consistent with my past observations. What it boils down to is that he inserts his favorite opinions into every discussion regardless of topic. Unable to engage in any sustained dialogue on a topic to see any discussion through to a conclusion, he nonetheless repeats his oft-disputed assertions at every opportunity as if they'd never been challenged.

The offense isn't major, but it is persistent and of long standing. He has been asked by at least four moderators that I'm aware to stop (myself, AdminJar, AdminNosy, AdminAsgara), and this doesn't seem to have affected his behavior at all. He's a huge moderator headache, and we're just trying to get his attention. He's more than welcome to remain here, we'd love him to stay, but he's got to reduce his moderator overhead to some reasonable level.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by CK, posted 09-01-2005 11:07 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by CK, posted 09-01-2005 11:57 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 66 of 300 (239620)
09-01-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
09-01-2005 1:18 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,

The moderators are fairly unamimous about you. You can conclude that we're all just biased evos, or you can try to see if there isn't something to what we're saying.

The moderators want constructive, on-topic discussions that move forward. Demonstrate you can participate on this level and your privileges will be restored. It has nothing to do with your point of view.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 1:18 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:05 PM Admin has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 74 of 300 (239900)
09-02-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
09-01-2005 3:05 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,

I'm not going to address all your meta issues. You seem to have negative views of the people you're debating and of evoutionists in general, but you're going to have to work through those issues on your own. I do think your tendency to give frequent voice to these feelings is a distraction, for you and for everyone.

The key point is that the moderators want constructive, on-topic discussions that move forward. Demonstrate you can participate on this level and your privileges will be restored. It has nothing to do with your point of view.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:05 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 3:40 PM Admin has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 78 of 300 (240044)
09-02-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
09-02-2005 3:40 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,

If you really believe that site moderators favor evolutionists by allowing them to get away with behavior not permitted Creationists, and by pestering Creationists who protest such treatment with curtailment of posting privileges, then there is nothing for you to do but move on.

But if you would like to take the moderator feedback to heart and begin participating in a constructive manner that allows discussions to move forward then you'll soon find your posting privileges restored. It is all really up to you.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 3:40 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:42 PM Admin has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 80 of 300 (240280)
09-03-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
09-02-2005 5:42 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
Hi Randman,

Moderators are busy people doing the best they can in the time available. I'm sorry you're unhappy with the way the site is managed, but I've responded to you a number of times giving you the bottom line. Since you've decided to not accept the suggestions but instead to continue sopping up moderator time, your posting privileges are completely and permanently suspended.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:42 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by wj, posted 09-03-2005 7:11 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 123 of 300 (242052)
09-10-2005 5:33 AM


Topic Drift Warning
This is a great discussion, but it probably belongs in the Is It Science? forum. Please find an appropriate thread there or propose a new one, then post a link to it here.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 6:53 AM Admin has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 125 of 300 (242061)
09-10-2005 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
09-10-2005 6:53 AM


Re: Topic Drift Warning
I've restored your privileges in Is It Science?.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 6:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 7:11 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 138 of 300 (242233)
09-11-2005 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Nuggin
09-10-2005 3:44 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
This moderator's opinion of this list of brief excerpts is that they are just the type of comments rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines encourages members to avoid because they tend to make discussions personal and focus attention away from the topic. EvC Forum tries to encourage a "Just the facts, ma'am" style approach (for those of you old enough to remember Dragnet).


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 3:44 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 193 of 300 (250710)
10-11-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by arachnophilia
10-10-2005 5:25 PM


Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
Adding another 2 cents to the pot...

Becoming stricter about the formulation of arguments in the science forums has reduced participation there rather than raised the tenor of debate. You can't get blood from a stone, and apparently you can't get scientific discussion from Creationists. The emergence of ID as the most prominent Creationist argument has caused them to adopt an even more blasé attitude toward scientific fundamentals.

It is very difficult for me to see any point in a scientific debate where one side is unable to keep up even a pretense of being scientific, but the alternative appears to be very little or no debate at all.

My stomach churns at the thought of allowing reentry of Creationists like John Paul and John Davison, or of complete loons like WillowTree, or of allowing anyone to simply ignore all central issues as is the style of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base. But holding Creationists to some minimal standards of scientific debate seems equivalent to greatly reduced dialog with them.

My thoughts on this conundrum swing like a pendulum. At present I seem to have swung to the opinion that we should, at least at present, reduce the burden on Creationists by not requiring them to discuss scientifically, even in the science forums. Within the next year or so I hope to release a version of the board with features that make addressing these difficult issues simpler and more natural with less demand upon moderator time.

I haven't had a chance to discuss these recent thoughts with the other moderators yet, so keep in mind this is only an opinion at this point.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 10-10-2005 5:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 9:42 AM Admin has responded
 Message 198 by Nighttrain, posted 10-11-2005 6:13 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 201 by AdminNosy, posted 10-11-2005 6:45 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 226 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2005 11:05 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 195 of 300 (250745)
10-11-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by robinrohan
10-11-2005 9:42 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
robinrohan writes:

I must say that a comment like this indicates that you are assuming what you are arguing about. Are we supposed to have certain "givens" about what it means to be "scientific"?

It is a common Creationist position that the definition of science is ambiguous or lacks a consensus. There are a number of threads that discuss this issue in Is It Science?, but here's the short answer to your question:

Yes, there are certain "givens" about what it means to be "scientific". Falsifiable, reproducible, supported by evidence and predictive are the most prominent qualities.

Actual discussion about the nature of science and of scientific inquiry should take place in Is It Science?.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 9:42 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 10:20 AM Admin has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 204 of 300 (251113)
10-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by robinrohan
10-11-2005 10:20 AM


Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
robinrohan writes:

Sounds like that, in order to participate in a science forum, one must have already accepted TOE. Is this accurate?

No, this isn't accurate.

It means that in the science forums one must argue scientifically. This doesn't mean that you must accept the TOE, but only that objections raised to the TOE must be scientifically well founded.

Objections to the traditional definition of science and issues concerning the nature of scientific inquiry can be raised in the Is It Science? forum.

This message has been edited by Admin, 10-12-2005 11:13 AM


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by robinrohan, posted 10-11-2005 10:20 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by robinrohan, posted 10-12-2005 12:18 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 223 by iano, posted 10-13-2005 12:11 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 216 of 300 (251165)
10-12-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
10-12-2005 12:18 PM


Re: thread reopen request
Faith writes:

No guidelines? No page of instructions?

There is a webpage of moderator guidelines made available to new moderators after the fact (so as to give them no oppportunity to change their minds :D).

This message has been edited by Admin, 10-12-2005 02:53 PM


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 12:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 217 of 300 (251170)
10-12-2005 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
10-12-2005 12:28 PM


Re: thread reopen request
Faith writes:

Akshully, Ben, thanks for the invite, which has also been extended by Percy on other occasions, but the hostility shown to me by certain of the current admins (and I've been VERY good lately so I know I haven't provoked it) is the reason I'm not going to take you up on it. Thanks anyway.

Teasers get what they deserve - *<POOF!!>* - you're a moderator. So sorry! You'll notice the Private Admin Forum now shows up on various pages, I'll post the link to the moderator guidelines there in a new thread, as well as other information.

I've also turned on all your privileges, you have full board access now.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-12-2005 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Brian, posted 10-12-2005 5:06 PM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Trixie, posted 10-13-2005 3:49 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12613
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 298 of 300 (268175)
12-12-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by crashfrog
12-12-2005 12:12 AM


Re: The Janus Fiction
My own observations indicate that Admins have widely varying degrees of success in objectively moderating threads in which they also participate. The moderator guidelines advise against the practice.

At the next board meeting, retiring inactive and infrequently active Admins will be a topic. I'll be proposing about 10 moderating actions per month as the threshold.

Another of my proposals that I'll put on the agenda is having members vote for Admins. Term of service would be 1 year before facing reelection, and if we institute removal of Admins for low activity levels, then the term of service could be shorter.

These are just agenda items at this point, not plans or committments.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by crashfrog, posted 12-12-2005 12:12 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019