Too much moderation on these boards?

Barring some very special circumstances - like a child entering a debate - I think equality is the only way to have things. Anything else opens up a can of worms- it is not fair that one parties position is weakened by bias in favor of anothers.- the bias actually weakens the position of the party in whose favor the bias is intended. Smear tactics can be used against them - not because they enjoy bias but because they are stated to enjoy it by admin- those in whose favor the bias is supposedly aimed never asked for the bias to be applied in the first place. This is not fair.- because a party is held to a different criteria as to rule following they cannot appeal to precedent set by the wide body of discussion that has occurred here. They are being measured apart by a seperate and closed system.- per definition, if the biased party is pulled up on something they have to be guilty because they are presumed to be continually operating below the general standard and it is that tolerance has run out. "Guilty but tolerated" rather than "innocent until shown to be guilty"

You're absolutely right, iano. There's a whole lot of assuming about people going on.Moose ASSUMED I was a whiny creationist.

That is very true.The site though was established as a place to seriously look at the claims being made by some of the religious groups that Biblical Creationism was a science. That is still the primary purpose of the site.However, most members here are multi-dimensional and have a wide range of interests. Over time, additional venues were added to allow discussions outside the straight and limited area of science as it relates to the question of evolution.One key part of the thinking that went into what we see today is that we needed to add additional venues to get around some of the limitations of the people who were not strictly scientific. This led to adding other areas, specifically "Education and Creation/Evolution", "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" and "Theological Creationism and ID". We hoped that by adding those areas, areas where non-scientific evidence could be given equal footing with scientific evidence, Biblical Creationists would be encouraged to try to present their best cases in support of their position.Quite quickly it became obvious that even among the religious participants, there were vast differences in how even evidence such as the Bible was viewed. This led to the addition of "Bible Study", "Faith & Belief" and "Comparative Religions" and several reorganizations of the board.But the primary purpose of the board remains the same, and that is to try to discuss whether or not Biblical Creationism and its surrogate, ID, are in anyway science.

You are. Nearly. And once you are one you'll see why we are considered whiny!

And how do we know that you aren't?Brian.

I don't believe that Robin is a creationist.

A primary purpose which no longer holds prime position amongst the posters. You can't stop evolution it seems and the site is what it has evolved into. And the basis for the supposed bias towards creos has outlived its use (if it ever existed at all). It should be naturally deselected

BrianI will vouch for him. He is not a whiny creationist. He is a happy nihilist.

The phrase I used was "greater leeway" not "infinite leeway". I've never seen anyone at any forum anywhere as ill-behaved as you. If you don't believe your behavior crossed the line then believe Buzsaw who tried to council you on your poor behavior, for example, Message 65. All anyone can do is take responsibility for their own actions. Keep your behavior above reproach and you'll have no problems here. But if you once again nominate yourself as the practitioner of tit-for-tat vigilantism for creationist justice here at EvC Forum and make yourself a constant force for divisiveness at the expense of reasoned debate, then you'll be suspended again. Buzsaw, our sole creationist moderator, has no problem speaking his mind. If he thinks anyone's actions are defensible he defends them - he has not defended you, in case you hadn't noticed.What I think you're perceiving here as bias is actually the absence of the creationist bias you're accustomed to at such boards. We'd still be delighted to learn from well-moderated and balanced creationist boards, but for some reason no one will provide links to them. As I've said before, you could find offense in a blessing from the Pope. Your ability to take offense is unsurpassed in my experience. My suggestion continues to be, as it always has, to follow the Forum Guidelines and keep your discussion focused on the topic. I also encourage you to remove from your spellchecker words like dishonest, liar and deception so that they get flagged as spelling errors. That way you'll be aware that you're using words that have gotten you into trouble in the past, and are likely to do so again in the future.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The same way we know you aren't. Everything you say leads one to suppose that you aren't. Not proof, but hey! who has proof of anything around here.

I think he is changing his opinion on nihilism.I was going to get all deep and philosophical but I can't be arsed now! But Robin and Faith do seem to be very cozy not quite a Samson and Delilah though!Brian.

I think we all know our opponents positions that well that it would be easy to act out.But it was tongue in cheek.Brian.(I am a YEC BTW)

And who do you suggest that we debate with once all the creationists are gone?The problem for my subjects here is that most of my opponents are starting off with a faulty approach to what history and archaeology actually is. In their world anything is possible, in the academic world we have to justify our conclusions, archaeologist Lewis Bindford calls it 'inference justification'. On this site arguments are supposed to be supported, and historical enquiry is a lot like scientific enquiry, but most of the creo crew don't seem to get it.There has to be bias in favour of the creos, just as a first year high school student would get more wiggle room than a post graduate.You cannot hold them up to the same standard if one doesn't understand what the standards are. What we can hope for though is that some of the creos may come to understand what critical enquiry is.Brian.

To what degree is your admitted atheism responsible for these opinions ?Ray

Hi Ray, It doesn't have anything to do with it. It is comon sense really.If two people are debating an event from the past, and one is using the historio-sceintific method and the other isn't, then there are going to be difficulties. If it is a critical discussion of a past event than both parties need to be playing by the same rules. If I discuss a theological argument I can discuss it from a faith based angle instead of applying a method of enquiry that is not valid.Starting out with a premise that a source is correct, regardless of what evidence you are going to find, is not the way to carry out an academic historical enquiry.Brian.