General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

Hi Purple Teddy Bear. This thread is for moderation issues. I'm a creationist Jesus knowing God loving Biblical fundie moderator here at EvC and I must advise you that if you want to talk about your problems with other matters than moderation you need to use another venue for it. If you wish to delve into what you've shared here I'd be willing to do a one on one with you on this issue in the proper forum as plain ole member buzsaw. Being I've been a Christian over 60 years you might consider this. We want you to become a Forum Guidelines abiding member here so don't run off in a huff. Stick around, follow the rules and you will get along fine here. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

---

A creationist Jesus knowing God loving Biblical fundie moderator for EvC.

I have just finished reading nearly all of the thread. I see this bully pulpit arrogance being put upon you with a typical pattern of ever increasing personal attacks either repeatedly insinuated or outright spoken. All one needs do is compare Percy's conduct with Son Goku and Cavediver's where they presented their views in a congenial manner void of the personal attacks.Percy seems to have this attitude that anyone who dares question mainline thinking in science is out of order and he's not going to stand for it. He owns this site and how dare you question what he sees as truth.I'm sorry you needed to be the brunt of this kind of treatment, but in a way I think this has surfaced a festering problem here at EvC which has made it so unbalanced in the science forums.Percy, I don't like saying this about you but NWR asked for a review and as one of the moderators I'm saying it like I see it. I do believe you are often in violation of your own Forum Guidelines #10 and this is a classic example.

Regardless of anyone's assessment of the arguments made regarding anyone or anything, my judgement had solely to do with the conduct of the poster. As I suggested, compare the conduct and manner of communicating of NWR's other counterparts, NWR himself and that of Percy relative to personal attacks and I think you will see the problem that I was addressing.

I call the shots as I see them, Crashfrog and I'm afraid you haven't confinced me that I've made the wrong judgement. Imo, it's about how you communicate your argument to another. This statement in Forum Guidelines, item 10 is what I've based my judgement on. Abe: Unlike the other participants of the discussion, Percy was making personal demeaning statements either implied or outright spoken in presenting his arguments regarding science aimed at the his counterpart in the debate. Others were making the same arguments and agreeing without doing it in a demeaning manner. If we all avoid this personal stuff, things hum along much better here at EvC. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

First, it was five Moderators including myself who posted public messages here advising that you were debating in bad form. Why do you single me out as bringing this public when NWR called for a review in this thread? I was responding to his call for moderation in this public thread where, as I understand he was suppose to do.Likely folks out here are wondering what NWR's problem was. (Btw I did not call for a suspension nor would I have, though I don't fault Adminnemouseous for making the questionable call). I assumed that this is where we we as moderators were suppose to respond. Am I mistaken in this?So far as going to the work of citing all of the offensive stuff, it's all public and I advised that interested parties do a comparison of the debate style of others supportive of your position and compare that to your style to make their own judgement. I don't see it as productive to delve into it in detail, but if you really want me to I'll oblige. Do you still want me to do that?I'll recap some of how other moderators assessed your conduct. In AdminOmni's comment I'm not sure what he was referring to when he add, "as are yours," but he nevertheless cited the offence. http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the "m=" numbers (which had all been "m=181") to be the same as the "#" numbers. Since different members are set up to display different numbers of messages per page, not having those numbers the same may result in not getting to the correct message. For example, my setup is 15 messages per page, and thus the "m=181" page contains messages 181 thru 195.

1. As I said, NWR brought it public, asking for moderation review. I assumed he did not intend for that review to be private. That's not how we do other members who have no access to PAF. Why should you as a participating member be treated other than others in this respect?
2. Including AdminPhat, NWR and myself, three other admins made comments also while the discussion in PAF was getting underway. Actually that makes six.
3. AdminOmni and AdminModulous both made public comments after mine, yet you chose to single mine out for whatever reason. If the fundamental issues of the nature of debate are violated in discussion and debate, the rule of thumb is, as I understand, to take those violations to the proper moderator forum rather than to take it upon yourself as a posting member and apply the violations amidst the discussion/debate in a personal manner so as to antagonize your debate counterpart. This, imo, is what inflamed the dissention in the affair and a was a violation of Forum Guidelines #10 on your part. Give me some time and I will do so. In the meantime I'll begin by advising you that the way to inflame, humiliate, insult and infuriate an articulate science minded secularistic highly intelligent scientifically apprised and studied athiest on the world wide web, who has also been a very efficient and useful asset to your website, is to liken that member to the creationists whom you've consistently been so very critical of and who for the most part are portrayed as simpleton nonothings, including creationist PHD grade ID scientists who you contend don't even do science in their IDist research papers and who you falsly allege do not provide evidence when in fact their evidence is largly the same as yours interpreted supportive of their own hypothesis.You clearly implicated NWR repeatedly during the discussion as doing equally as poorly as you consider creationists to be doing rather than addressing your problem with his manner of debate in the proper forum.Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Fix a gramatical error

Jar, since I'm the moderator who made the judgement, I'll wait and let other admins assess the matter and weigh in here on your problem. Thanks.

How did you determine that I was admonishing Jar for being off topic. Did I not make it clear that Jar was the one nitpicking about his opponents being off topic, when in fact they were on topic?

PaulK, please reread my admonition and the OP of the thread. Baptism is just one of the sacraments. Jar's nitpicking was not limited to just the Baptism debate. My admonition pertained to all the sacraments in general as the thread OP had it. Baptism, perse was not mentioned in the OP but inclusive under "sacramental" since it is one of the sacraments. There are a number of sacraments, including confirmation which was also discussed in the messages of the page involved.

Read the topic OP and go figure, Jar. Are you going to continue your nitpicky stuff here as well? If so, then I guess the best thing for us to do is wait for a forum director to weigh in here. I am trying to do my job in a fair and balanced manner here. I'm not suspending you, just admonishing so as to keep the peace in the thread and make it work for all parties of the debate. You're attacking nearly all the folks who are opposing your viewpoint in a nitpicky way and it makes the going very unpleasant for the folks who must deal with you. IMO, you can become a pain in the butt, heckling your opposition continually with your ever so active participation and so long as I'm moderator I'll not put up with undue provocation from you in the forums.

Not nice and not true, Arach. Clownish and unreasonable members post here from all ideological directions. Your inflamitory remarks lumping all creationists as unreasonable clowns are themselves unreasonable and insultive to some members who have as good or better record as you for forum behavior. I suggest that you work a little harder to keep the peace in EvC town.