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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Re: Another Opinion on Scientific Discussion with Creationists
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?.
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.
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.