General discussion of moderation procedures

Wrong! I don't know about the other moderators, but if you look at my avatar you'll notice I'm a cat. That should be all you need to know to understand moderation practices around here! All joking aside, moderators *will* make bad decisions. But the usual penalties handed out here aren't particularly severe, so the cost to a member when it is the moderator who is wrong isn't very much. The lesser moderation actions, for example suggesting to someone that they aren't following the Forum Guidelines, also raises much ire, and has generated a number of threads that do nothing more than discuss debating styles.--Percy

While a newbie might be forgiven for not initially recognizing that this is a science site, you've been here quite a while. EvC Forum exists because of the threat to science education posed by Creationism, which seeks to have religious views represented in science class. Many Creationists believe Creationism is science, while evolutionists believe it is thinly disguised Genesis. It is primarily this issue that this site is intended to explore. And we are. But such accomodation will not include changing the definition of science. The reason you're having so much trouble identifying the problem is because you believe views held out of ignorance should carry as much weight as views based upon evidence and knowledge, and you refuse to abandon this view. This mindset is so ingrained within you that I don't think you even realize it. You are again speaking out of ignorance. It was your ignorance of geology and scientific methods that forced you to abandon the Deposition and Erosion of Sediments thread. It was your ignorance of the simple demands of historical study that led to all your frustrations in the Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts thread. Writing words and words and ever more words, mostly complaining about your poor treatment, is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about. Instead of complaining, get out a book and learn something. Come to the debate armed with actual knowledge. This is a debate site considering questions of scientific support for Creationism and evolution. The correct response to a request to support your points is to simply support your points. If you can't do that, if your only response is to become frustrated and insulting, then you don't belong here.--Percy

Your motives? I said nothing about your motives. Ignorance is not a motive. Leave it to you to make up charges out of thin air.Like all of my ilk here and unlike you, I have evidence for what I say, which is your own statements made more than once that you abandoned the geology discussion because you lacked "inspiration", and your resort to insult, copiously documented across many posts, in the eyewitness thread. It is clear even in this thread where your only counter to rational arguments is to call them stupid, even while admitting that you can't explain why they're stupid.Arm yourself with knowledge and logic, Faith, not insult. As has been told to you many times, especially by Schraf, the way the debate is conducted here is very similar to the way science works. Scientists counter the arguments of other scientists with evidence and argument, not by insult. You would find the debate much easier going if you learned first and argued later. Ignorance is a barrier to informed discussion, and your insistance on participating anyway is what is getting you so frustrated and causing you to behave so badly. It is precisely your inability to engage in rational and dispassionate discussion that renders your participation here inappropriate, especially combined with your abusive tendencies. If I selected a collection of your posts, would you dare show them to someone whose opinion you respect, perhaps your pastor or husband? Can you honestly say you're proud of the way you behaved here? Or perhaps you have no sense of shame.--Percy

Now you're arguing about definitions. I explained that you abandoned threads because you were intellectually defenseless. Ignorance is not a motive. Ignorance is the reason you were unable to maintain an objective tenor in discussion and so resorted to abusing your fellow members. This is the type of emotional response with which we've become so familiar when you find yourself unable to respond. My advice is to simply answer the question or explain why it isn't relevant to the issue. Giving things labels like "nitpicking" is just more unsupported assertion on your part. I think you have a chip on your shoulder. The facts are that you managed to take offense from almost everyone. Your idea of a provocation is someone expressing an opinion you disagree with. Starting when? Is this like the last 97 times you announced you were leaving? You have no shame. You have no decency. Do you even have no sense of consistency? Do you not even feel any embarassment when you fail time after time to do anything you say you're going to do? Ah, I see, reject the impertinent moralizing of others, but engage in it freely yourself. No, Faith, you are answering sense with nonsense and then abusing everyone who disagrees with you. You could have learned what you didn't understand with the goal of explaining how it is wrong, but you instead pinned labels on it and the people involved. You proved incapable of leaving your emotions out of discussion, and this combined with your lack of knowledge makes you a very inappropriate participant for this type of debate.--Percy