General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

It followed from a discussion in Private Administrator's Forum. Naturally, given that the discussion took place there, details are going to be a bit thin.Suffice it to say that there was a unresolvable difference in opinion on the manner of debate at EvC. Percy's opinions with regards to Faith's participation are well documented. Unless Percy chooses to expand on things any further, the final paragraph in this post probably sums things up suitably.

---

After some consideration I'm siding with nwr on this one. However, both parties puzzled me.It started with nwr simply commenting he was skeptical of the BB. Percy asking to discuss it further, and nwr agreeing. Nwr made it clear he was not trying to refute BB, just that the evidence he had seen hadn't been enough to convince him.Percy continued to debate nwr as if he were trying to refute the BB, and it went around for a while with nwr trying to explain this wasn't the case. Eventually Percy concluded that nwr was letting his ignorance shine through.I'm puzzled as to why nwr thought it was a good to idea to put his opinion forward in a debate board without the opinion being...debated.On reflection though, Percy was less civil than he could have been and it discoloured the flavour of debate. If his purpose was to show that two evolutionists debate the same as an evolutionist versus a creationist - then all he really achieved was showing that creationists get given a hard time around here.If Percy succeeds in making this debate style the norm, I'd be very disappointed. We all like to see people that make grand declarations about how their opinion of science is Truth get taken down a notch and shown to be the arrogant ignoramuses they are. However, I don't think I want to be part of a culture where tentative skepticism is met with criticism and accusations of ignorance.If a creationist says 'I'm not convinced by the evidence of macroevolution' then I'd rather see a discussion along the lines of 'Let's look at the evidence and discuss what you think of it.'

---

I don't think it warranted suspension personally. Though I suppose it shows that even the board's administrator can be rebuked by other mods - so that equivalence thing is working. Still - I think the best thing for nwr to have done is called an end to his discussion with Percy and concentrated on the discussions with the cosmologists.Not a perfect solution, but I don't think suspension was quite necessary.

If I met an ugly person and said "You're ugly" - it'd be true, but disprespectful.Likewise if I saw an overweight person and called them 'fatty', that would be disrespectful.I did not suspend Dr Adequate because he was not stating facts or otherwise. I suspended him because his comments were disrespectful. I suspended Dr Adequate because randman has been suspended for much less and it would be a double standard to look the other way for Dr Adequate.The 'but he is a liar' defense has been used time and time again here, by randman included. It didn't work in randman's defense, it won't work in Dr Adequate's.

As I said, the argument has been tried before. It doesn't work. The point remains that it is not respectful to call someone a liar, goad and needle them, call them a coward. Its simple, everyone on either side is convinced of the dishonesty of the other side. Both sides are completely convinced of it. It is simpler to say 'don't call your opponent a liar, simply show why they are wrong or inconsistent', than to have three 300 post long threads debating whether there was an intention to decieve, with lots of dictionary definitions of 'to lie' being thrown around and so on and so forth. It just gets messy and absurd.Calling your opponent a liar is likely to end up with you getting suspended. Simple. Effective. Even if your opponent is a liar, don't call them a liar. Show that they are wrong. Show that they are inconsistent.Calling your opponent a coward is likely to end up with you getting suspended. Don't do it, its easy. Untrue. Randman is suspended from almost all fora. He can even be suspended from other Showcase threads (not practically, due to software restrictions). He is effectively the moderator of his own threads because for whatever reason, people enjoy debating him but he cannot stay within forum guidelines. Thus we allow him to make up his own rules, so people can get to engage with him if they choose.I really do understand that both the Showcase and rule 10 application system is imperfect. I feel that temporary suspensions are a good compromise - creationist forums often simply ban transgressors permanently. That way, we can slap people on the wrist for going a little too far and if they are persistent we can get rid of them or remove certain privelages.I just want it known that Dr A's suspension wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to some abrasive words. It was a considered action, and while it probably wasn't the best action, it certainly wasn't a terrible action (I hope).

---