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 7:27 PM
25 online now:
edge, jar, Jon, kjsimons, xongsmith (5 members, 20 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
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 58 of 300 (238629)
08-30-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by CK
08-30-2005 2:22 PM


There is a network saying, that goes something like this:

Do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.
I think AdminJar is simply following that principle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 08-30-2005 2:22 PM CK has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 76 of 300 (240038)
09-02-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
09-02-2005 3:40 PM


Re: complete evo hypocrisy
randman writes:

As such, everything in my post was on-topic, but admittedly embarassing for evos, and so Nosey bans me ostensibly for being off-topic.


The topic was the accuracy of published research reports. As best I can tell, the study was mainly based on research using statistical hypothesis testing, such as is common in the social sciences and pharmacology.

You seemed to be using it as an excuse to attack evolutionists. It sure seemed off topic to me.

However, I apologize for responding to that post. I hadn't noticed that you would be unable to reply.


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 77 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 5:19 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 82 of 300 (240335)
09-04-2005 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by wj
09-03-2005 7:11 PM


Setting the record straight.
I probably shouldn't be posting here, so I'll keep this short (and I won't debate it further).

wj writes:

Randman raises questions of evolutionists which they are unable to answer truthfully and then they call on moderators to lock randman out so that the dishonesty and propoganda of evolution can be protected.


Randman's questions have been answered many times. Yet he kept bringing them up, and ignoring the answers already given. Often he brought them up in threads where they were off-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by wj, posted 09-03-2005 7:11 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by wj, posted 09-04-2005 4:41 AM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 101 of 300 (241272)
09-08-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Modulous
09-08-2005 8:08 AM


Re: Crashfrog's recent suspension
I thought there was over-reaction on both sides.

The moderation of this site is, of course, biased. It has to be. It is biased against the evolutionists. The moderators give a lot of latitude to creationists, but far less to evolutionists.

Nevertheless creationists are often being suspended, while suspensions for evolutionists are rare. This is because evolutionists are mainly giving evidence-based posts, while creationists mostly are not.

Because of this difference in suspension rates, there is an unavoidable appearance of bias against creationists. It is to counter this appearance that the moderators must be quick to react when they see a problem in posts by those on the evolutionist side.

On the issue of moderator participation in a thread, I don't agree with Modulous here. His proposed restriction is not practical. A moderator who is not participating in a thread is less likely to notice problems and thus will be a poorer moderator. You can see this on the faith-based side of the house, where the moderation is often poor. Threads wander badly off-topic, and moderators are slow to notice the problem -- presumably because the most active moderators are more interested in the science side.

Sure, moderating and participating in the same thread can cause problems. But, as we saw in the crashfrog case, these problem seem to be corrected. It appears that the moderators are watching each other and attempting to correct mistakes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 8:08 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2005 10:46 AM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 108 of 300 (241872)
09-09-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ben!
09-09-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Science in non-science forums.
I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?

I agree with you.

This sort of thread makes for good reading on how literalists think.

It seems reasonable to ask Faith some difficult questions. But it is surely foolish to try to persuade her that literalism is wrong. She clearly isn't going to be persuaded. But it is fascinating to watch how she deals with the questions.

I guess I am treating it as a case study in fundy thinking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 3:23 PM Ben! has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 129 of 300 (242099)
09-10-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
09-10-2005 2:21 PM


Re: The same old problem revisited
I agree with Faith on this. In my opinion, the thread should not have been moved.

Perhaps the thread had run its course and could have simply been locked. Or perhaps it should have been left open a little longer if Faith wished to continue responding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 2:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 09-10-2005 3:14 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 135 of 300 (242114)
09-10-2005 3:55 PM


Lets stay on on topic
It would be nice if this thread could stay on topic, that is, discussion of moderation. Can we skip the bickering.
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 174 of 300 (246762)
09-27-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-27-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Ben: mutation thread
A comment from an observer (me) of Some mutations sound too good to be true. On my reading, Faith was mainly seeking clarification. When she brought up Noah's flood, I took her as asking what evolution would expect from the bottleneck that would exist, if the flood story were correct. I did not take her as using that to challenge the science. I took this as within the intended scope of the thread.

This is probably the wrong place, but I would like to compliment the several participants in that thread. Overall it has been, and continues to be, an excellent discussion. And it seems to me that Faith has learned quite a bit about the role of mutations. For that matter, I have learned a thing or two myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-27-2005 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 229 of 300 (251824)
10-14-2005 4:36 PM


Comment on simple's suspension from cosmology
At least part of the problem in simple's discussions, has been that his question appears to have been misunderstood. I have commented (briefly) on that in Message 99.

Yes, simple seems to be annoying in his persistence with his questioning. But at least part of that persistence is because his real question was not being addressed in the responses.


Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AdminNosy, posted 10-14-2005 5:03 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 238 of 300 (251896)
10-15-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by robinrohan
10-15-2005 12:20 AM


Re: Reply to robinrohan
The way she was run off, by constant hounding, was a travesty.

I'm unhappy to see Faith leave, too. But I really don't think she was "run off".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:20 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:30 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 240 of 300 (251898)
10-15-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by robinrohan
10-15-2005 12:30 AM


Re: Reply to robinrohan
Take a look at that "ambiguity" thread.

I have been following it, and there was some unnecessary bickering about it being in a science forum. However, it is my impression that the Mary thread had more to do with her leaving.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:30 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 12:42 AM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 249 of 300 (255539)
10-29-2005 8:02 PM


The RAZD suspension - how long?
The announcement that RAZD is suspended (Message 273) did not list the length.

RAZD's posts contribute a lot to this site, so I hope it will be a short suspension.


Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ohnhai, posted 10-29-2005 9:30 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 266 of 300 (257344)
11-06-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Lammy
11-06-2005 6:48 PM


Re: Example yes, accuracy no
The point was the comparason between evolutionary lines and geneologies.

The problem was that it became sidetracked into an off-topic argument as to whether the biblical geneologies are true or false. Or at least that is what I took AdminNosy's concern.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Lammy, posted 11-06-2005 6:48 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Lammy, posted 11-06-2005 6:58 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 293 of 300 (268133)
12-12-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Jazzns
12-12-2005 10:39 AM


Re: How many Haeckel threads do we have now?
In short I am going to formally request that we create a new forum called Randman's Haeckel Blog and ...

Wouldn't you also need
  • Randman's pakicetus blog;
  • Randman's missing transitionals blog;
  • Randman's poofing blog; and, maybe
  • Randman's non-random mutation blog


    What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
    (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 291 by Jazzns, posted 12-12-2005 10:39 AM Jazzns 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