General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

You can always invent an explanation. There will be no evidence that Faith, or anyone, can't devise a sentence in English that appears to explain it.The crucial point is not that an explanation is made, but that a valid explanation is made. And determining the validity of an explanation is something we do with science.

It's not my understanding that EvC exists to allow YEC's a soapbox from which to promulgate their views; Percy has on many occasions specified that the purpose of this forum is to examine the claim of many creationists that their models can be supported and investigated scientifically.It's contradictory to that mission, therefore, to allow YEC's to promulgate their models and conclusions portected from scientific challenge; people who come here to post from a YEC perspective need to understand either that their participation implies a claim that creationism can withstand proper scientific inquiry, or that this isn't the forum for them.If the YEC position is not one that you feel can be supported scientifically without arbitrary assumptions of biblical inerrancy, then it's not clear to me why you choose to post here. Above all this is a forum where we examine creationist claims via science, not where Biblical literalists are allowed to promulgate their beliefs beyond challenge.To the extent that YEC's are welcome here, they're welcome only because they bring beliefs for us to examine. If an examination of their beliefs is not something they're going to allow, then I don't see why they should be welcomed. I'm not interested in discussing with you or with any other YEC if that discussion means that their arbitrary assumptions and the conclusions from them are set off-limits. And according to Percy's explicit mission for the forum, I don't understand why you believe such a person as yourself, who would set their model beyond scientific challenge, would be welcome here.

I won't attempt to defend my view of the geneologies any further.

Call it the "Janus Conceit": the fiction that admin post as different "personas", independant of each other and not influenced by each other, even if an admin mods a thread he himself is participating in. No, they're not different roles. It's the same person. And to expect the rest of us to adhere to this fiction is insulting and rude.I remember how it started, you know. Minnemooseus started it, if I recall correctly. It was a cute conceit in his writing, a way to make moderation a little more interesting and make it appear "fair" when the Moose moderated threads in which he was participating.But apparently it caught on. The newest outrage is that, apparently, the admins can demand that the rest of us play the same game, and that's taking it too far. Immature? Inappropriate, as I was accused by Jar? What's inappropriate is the suggestion that an admins moderation doesn't reflect on them as a person and a poster, and vice-versa.If we're going to "anoint" admins from the general posting populace, by fiat by the rest of the admins, then its inconsistent, in fact, to assert that a poster's bad habits don't reflect on the quality of their moderation. If that's true, why were they picked to be a moderator in the first place?As it is, the policy simply ensures that the squeakiest posters with the worst habits will ascend to adminhood, placing their bad behavior above reproach and allowing them even greater power to exact unfair retribution against their opponents.I call on the admins to voluntarily reject this fiction. To voluntarily abstain from moderating threads in which they have participated. And I call for the procedures for dealing with moderator abuse to be developed and made explicit.Either that, or if moderators suddenly have a basis to insist that an admin's behavior as a poster doesn't reflect on their suitability to be a moderator, then I'd like to see the forum rule that makes that explicit. There seems to be an increasing number of such rules, these days.