General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

This is undoubtedly true. There is literally no way to characterize some of the utterances by certain individuals on this board in any other way. HOWEVER, and I think this piece is key: once it has been shown (through, for example, linking to and quoting the exact statements in contention), then the job of the individual who is being misrepresented is done. I personally see absolutely no point in "putting their back up" about it. Anyone - and I mean anyone - reading the exchange can determine the relative merits of the two positions/statements. If someone is blatantly misrepresenting someone else (and it's not just a case of misunderstanding, in which case clarification is in order), then I've found that it is excrutiatingly obvious to all observers which is which. You should know as well as I do that we're simply not going to change certain individuals' minds and/or behavior (or in some cases, what passes for minds). Calling someone a liar (or saying that they are lying or that their statement is a lie, all of which amount to the same thing) is definitely not going to accomplish much of anything.As to the Showcase forum, as you know I have been opposed to the concept since its inception. Ban the irredeemable, don't put them in a cage for people to gawk at. On this subject, I disagree with Percy - and think his rationalization (that it provides a "worst of the worst" example), is, hmmm, a bit weak. However, I simply refrain from participating in that forum in any way. As long as Percy believes there is some utility in it, it's his board to run as he wishes. There isn't a single denizen of that forum that I wouldn't have permanently banned for flagrant and continual guidelines violations.

They undoubtedly did. However, as noted in the section you so kindly bolded for everyone to read, I pointed out that I would have banned all and sundry for repeated forum violations, not for the positions they espoused. It's not what you say, Ray, it's how you - and the others - have proven repeatedly that you are incapable of civil discourse.If you are content with being put on display like some kind of curiousity for the amusement of idle passersby, then that is up to you. For me, I would have preferred to simply eliminate the problem. I personally don't believe EvCForum is well-served by placing any active members in a cage simply to showcase how pitiable they are. I also don't like pulling the wings off flies - but that's just me.

No, only certain individuals who are incapable of operating under the guidelines established for discourse on this forum. After all, no one is required to be here. If you were to invite me into your home (an unlikely occurance, I admit), with the mutually-agreed-upon stipulation that I don't kick your cat, then wouldn't you be justified in giving me the boot if I not only once but repeatedly kicked your cat? If you consider that censorship, then I'm afraid we have no basis for conversation on the subject.There have been quite a number of posters here with whom I wouldn't see eye-to-eye in a million years, but yet with whom I've had quite enjoyable discussions (Tranquility Base and tokyojim are two that spring immediately to mind - there have been many others). I would never advocate banning them. I was even opposed to the banning of several others with whom I also had many good (albeit increasingly frustrating in a few cases) discussions - such as Faith and Peter Borger to name two.If it makes you feel better, I would never have forced you into a cage for the edification of the plebes. I would have done the honorable thing and booted your ass off the board completely.

Deleted double postEdited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

Anger? Interesting that you would confuse a simple statement of position with anger. Besides, it's difficult to feel anger at someone who engenders feelings of pity at best - and one who, at worst, I simply choose to ignore in most cases. Nope, wrong again. I simply think that anyone who is incapable of treating others as human beings with simple courtesy and decency - whether they agree with them or not - doesn't deserve the privilege of eating dinner with the adults. Remember the cat?