AdminNosy banned?

Crashfrog writes:Well, I mean, did you read the thread? NWR said he got to disregard science because he didn't like the color of Percy's avatar.

Admin writes:One of the central issues of the recent disagreement is the right of someone to declare a position private and off-limits to discussion. If it isn't clear to everyone yet let me be as clear as I can now: there is no such right at EvC Forum. There never has been.

Archer writes: The problem does not stem from any rule. The problem does not stem from any one thread.The problem is that you--laudable as your goals are--are mistaking some crucial things about groups and how they function. A walkoff of this magnitude involving experienced subscribers, any way you spin it, amounts to one thing. It's a vote of no confidence.It is not realistic to expect quality debate from an online come-as-you-are party thrown open to the general public. That's like an editor expecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel from the slush pile. It's like a college president expecting to build an Ivy League-caliber school without asking applicants to pass SATs. Getting elite results from a cattle call happens so rarely that you're as well off looking to the Lotto to pay for your retirement.Most members of the general public lack training in debate points. Most have no experience in structured debate at all. They will not be good at it. Some individuals will eventually get the hang of it. Most--like most of the novels in the slush pile--will have to be discarded.Your recruitment process for participants in your 'quality debate' thus displays an egalitarian character that bears no rational connection to the elite nature of your stated goal.You can go one of two ways in correcting this problem. One option is to qualify your debate participants. Not just anyone can post. Another is to allow the group to remain diverse and allow the group to pursue diverse goals, of which debate is only one.Until now the latter sort of group is what people thought they had. People join the forum for many reasons. They get many things out of it. They invest their time, their concern, and their volunteer efforts on this basis. They understand that this forum is a safe environment for doing this.The way discussions here work--whatever rules you make--is that each thread has its own parameters. Some are for science education, some are for laughs, some are for irony (you've started one of these yourself), some are to compare philosophical notes. The participants in the thread signal each other about what goes and what doesn't, people understand the contract, and the discussion proceeds. Some threads are very confined. Some are wide open. All have value.You seem to have trouble seing or admitting the many varieties of value that exist here. You seem to want a debate forum and only that.That is your prerogative. But if that is what you want, an all-call to the general public is an irrational way to set it up. Quality debate requires quality recruiting.The sensible way to meet that goal is to select qualified debaters, assign them their roles, and put on a good online show. Everyone else is a spectator. They can offer comments, perhaps, but they are not in the arena.Your stated goals thus require a different process than the one you use. Right now you invite fans to join the game and run all over the field, then get frustrated that they don't act more like your idea of pro athletes.

alacrity writes:Crashfrog is a former christian, percy is a christian who sees no problem in what science shows, I'm an atheist who never had any belief in any form of spiritulism magic supernatural stuff. You want hard liners like you, faith and iano plus randman running this site.

crashfrog writes:How so? Why wouldn't ID theorists and creationists want to debate their ideas? Why would they insist that they be beyond challenge if they believe their ideas are correct?

crashfrog writes:I think you're completely misrepresenting Percy here, and I find that surprising since you've leveled accusations of myself and others doing that in the past. Dissent with "THE science" is perfectly acceptable, according to Percy; but it has been and remains the case that those who dissent should not expect to be able to promulgate their views without challenge.Why should anybody get to promulgate their views without challenge? You can't seem to explain the logic, there.

CF writes:Absolutely he isn't. Rather, Buzz, you're way off the farm when you assert that ID views should have the privilege of being promulgated without challenge. You can't, of course, explain why, but that's par for the course.

crashfrog writes:I stand with Percy, proudly, in supporting his anti-nonsense agenda. I simply can't understand the criticisms of those who disagree. To them, and to Buz, I ask - what use is a debate site where people are prevented from responding to you? You people have the Showcase, where the normal rules are suspended for you; give a creationist an inch, though, and I guess they want a mile.

Admin writes:Stated: That creation science is legitimate science deserving of treatment alongside evolution, or even replacing evolution, in public school science classrooms.

PaulK writes:So, you insist that IDist's must refuse to debate until certain lies are accepted. Well if they will only debate on those conditions then it proves that they are wrong. ID is a fraud and you have admitted it.

crashfrog writes:By fulfilling the purpose of EvC, and succesfully defending ID as a legitimate pursuit of science. That's where they have to begin, like every other conjecture.

WK writes:You don't seem to read too good Buz. I don't see anywhere where Percy said that the goal of EvC was to refute that statement. He said the purpose was to consider it.

PaulK writes:As Behe admitted during the Kitzmiller trial there is no original research supporting ID. As the Discovery Insittute practically admitted when they made their vague press release about their own spending on research - they didn't give a figure for the portion spent on scientific research. instead lumping together all the "research" they funded in just one figure.
So, you insist that IDist's must refuse to debate until certain lies are accepted. Well if they will only debate on those conditions then it proves that they are wrong. ID is a fraud and you have admitted it.

Admin writes:I wasn't questioning a moderator decision. I was alluding to Nwr's decision to post a complaint in the moderation thread. It was a reference to the irony of the primary offender making the complaint.

Modulous writes:If the situation were reversed, and the board was mostly composed of Creationists who thought that evolution was wrong, would you complain likewise?

Modulous writes:An IDer is perfectly welcome to post a thread and say 'This is science, here it is.'. Other people are then welcome to say 'That's a load of bunkum and here is why'.

Modulous writes:So what solution do you offer? I put two solutions forward, neither tenable. Can you think of another?

Modulous writes:As of this moment, I've seen precious little ID science presented. If someone where to come upon any, they are free to say - 'hey look - this is science'. It will probably be another bunch of pseudoscience that ignores data and seemingly makes facts up or references facts that were abandoned by experts in the subject twenty years ago due to better evidence.

Modulous writes: Anyone can put forward a bunch of pseudoscience and attempt to defend it...as long as they do so in good faith, addressing rebuttals etc etc.

Modulous writes: The problem is, that that is a rare debate to be seen.

Modulous writes: Buzz, citing evidence does not make something scientific. I could say - the sky is blue, which is caused by silkworms stretching their cosmic tapestry. Night time is when they turn the tapestry over. When astronauts or rocks try and go through the fabric, it causes friction and things burn up. Lightening is caused by static discharges in the fabric.That cites the same evidence that meteorologists etc use - but it ain't science buddy.

Modulous writes:Its perfectly debatable.

Modulous writes: I'm perfectly happy to discuss pseudoscience with you in greater detail in a thread if you'd like.

Modulous writes:If you don't want to support a position, take it to Showcase.

Modulous writes:If you have nothing else to debate but Baumgardner, then the debate with you is probably over. We know your position, and if you put it forwards you'll just repeat it no matter how often it gets taken to pices.