General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

There's no need. I'm actually on your side, no offense to my defenders of course, but I could have made my remarks a lot more temperate. I think you were right to call me on it as you did.I was writing in a hurry, and with my blood up - not a good combination for civil discussion.

...in the "Dawkins - The God Delusion" Book Nook thread. Randman, after being warned, continues to violate guidelines 2, 4, and 8 by failing to address rebuttals, repeated rebutted arguments without elaboration, and introducing off-topic materials as a smokescreen to avoid responding to arguments.I don't ask for any specific action to be taken but I think there's a need for a little monitoring on the subject.

Well, no. Your assertion was that religion universally asserted one Creator God. This was rebutted with several examples of well-known, widely practiced religions that:1) Believed in multiple deities, each with a hand in the creation of the world; or
2) Believed that the world was eternal and therefore not created.Your response to this was to repeat that religions universally asserted one Creator God (as well as to argue that even amongst those religions, there's dissent and a lack of consensus about those positions, which proves my point). That doesn't constitute a rebuttal. It does constitute a violation of forum guideline 4:

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

I don't know what argument you think that rebuts, since I've never asserted that the scientific consensus represents ultimate truth, and it certainly doesn't support your contention that all religions universally assert one Creator God.Since it's not relevant to any argument currently under discussion, it is a smokescreen, and as a form of misrepresentation that's off-topic that violates forum rules 2 and 8.Repeating assertions without responding to rebuttals, going off-topic, and misrepresenting your opponents are all violations of the forum guidelines - and notably, ones that you've accused others of in the past. This isn't an attempt to hoist you on your own petard; it's an attempt to force you to understand that I have no interest in playing with you under showcase rules, and debates that you choose to engage with me in other forums are going to be held to the real, fair rules.

This is not the place to continue that debate, and this statement misrepresents my position.You know what I said, Randman, and if you don't, you can go back and read it. Misrepresenting me in this forum doesn't help your case, and while it certainly wasn't my intent to have you suspended from the Book Nook - as message 27 of mine proves - I see that it was entirely deserved. I made no such claim.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I'm certain that Randman won't be able to. At this point, from his behavior, I have no interest in a great debate with him.

I'm pretty sure that, by definition, you can't be a martyr by suicide.

Slack in what way? I don't see where you've experienced any administrator action. All that's happening is that you're being disagreed with. (Gasp!)Are you saying that people don't have the right to explain how your behavior is frustrating to them, and how they have difficulty seeing how your posts contain anything but word-salad nonsense and glib one-liners? (Not to mention a fair helping of misrepresenting your opponents.)I wonder if you're even capable of imagining that your opponents might have legitimate objections to your behavior, and might not simply be acting out of some kind of personal malice against someone they've never ever met.

You got Moosed.

AM, can you give any kind of indication that you actually read threads before you determine what is on or off-topic? Because it seems like you're just comparing post content to thread title.I don't see that that kind of lazy admin'ing is appropriate.When arguments are supported - as the forum rules demand that they be - by additional arguments and evidence, some latitude needs to be allowed for those sub-arguments to be explored. In a recent case on the subject of guns, the lethality of gun alternatives was very much part of the topic - which you would have known if had been reading the thread.In general your tendency to act unilaterally on incomplete information disrupts more legitimate conversation than it supports.

Do you have any? I can't see that you do. Yes, I saw the banner. I replied anyway because you were clearly in error about the subject being off-topic.As I said, topics need a little "breathing room" to discuss sub-arguments that arise. Discussion becomes impossible if we're held too rigidly to the narrow scope that a thread title encompasses.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Serious questions about your ability to detect legitimate connection to topic have already been raised in several posts. What is it going to take to get you to consider that perhaps your judgment on this point is not definitive? I, for one, would like to see you making judgments about whether a post was on-topic based on the OP of the thread, not the thread title as you currently appear to be doing. If you can't be bothered to read the thread and follow the flow of conversation - and recognize how sub-topics need to be explored to buttress main points - then it would be better for all if you didn't moderate in that thread except under the most dire circumstances. As it stands now you're interrupting far more legitimate debate than you're cultivating.

I don't see that you made any reply to my post, actually. Did I miss something? Because it seemed to me that the debate ended the minute I provided evidence you were wrong.

I've been dealing with a spittle-flecked torrent of personal abuse from Nuggin in the Bigfoot thread for having the naked temerity not to accept the existence of Bigfood on faith, as Nuggin does, but his most recent fusillade is a little beyond the pale.After these enduring these remarks:

quote:

---

Crashfrog is the winning winner in win town! Hurray!

​

Clearly this will go no further. You can't prove what you claim, you fail to acknowledge that you even made the claims.

​

It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old.

​

So, I'll have to do the adult thing. I hereby award you 6 gold stars and declare you the winning winner in win town.

​

Happy? Can you take your fingers out of your ears now.

---

and

quote:

---

Crash, I've given you a total of 7 gold stars and declared you the "winningest winner of win town".

​

What more do you want?

​

Extra credit? A scratch and sniff sticker? 5 more minutes at recess?

​

I get the impression that you are willing to keep posting here until you get all the stickers you can get.

​

So let me put your mind at ease.

​

You are very smart, Crash. And a good boy. And even though you the girls in class think you have cooties, it's just because they don't understand you.

​

Hopefully that clicks whatever it is that needs to be clicked back into place.

---

he responds to my point: by asserting: The idea that I've just said something racist is clearly ridiculous, and Nuggin is doing nothing but attempting to completely misrepresent me as a racist because it's clear he has no response to my basic points.He's become personally abusive and defensive, and it's been going on for two days now. I think a little moderator attention would be appreciated.