General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 9.0

quote:

---

I agree with Ray that a permanent restriction to the "sandbox" forum is unfair and does not reflect well on the "liberal thinking" of the moderators.

---

I disagree. Ray is probably happier there where he is far less subject to moderation and can freely indulge his habit of abuisng those who disagree with him. Unless you mean that it is unfair in his favour - which is not something Ray could justly complain about.Randman is also happier there for the same reasons and because he can - and has - effectively banned those who get the better of him in argument.

quote:

---

I don't know to what extent a Soapbox area like the Showcase forum effects this situation. Does it suggest that we are tolerant of other views or that we are arrogant and dogmatic and like to keep our creationists in a cage to poke with sticks?

---

I'd say that the access controls on Showcase rule out the second possibility. If you want to poke the creationists you've got to get in the cage with them - and they can get you thrown out whenever they feel like it.

Sorry, I have to agree with the suspension. While Randman certainly has a history of blatant untruths it is not an adequate excuse for Dr. Adequates continued flaunting of the forum rules. (And I would add that I suspect that Randman actually believes his ridiculous falsehoods on the grounds that no liar would be so obvious about it).

I count 5 posts violating the guidelines, between the time the warning was given and the suspension. Under the circumstances I can understand why Percy went for more than a week.

Randman is in the Showcase forum BECAUSE he is incapable of following the guidelines. That's why he wasn't suspended. He can do pretty much what he likes there. By all means point out his violations to anyone who suggests he's fit to be let out into the relatively civilised areas of this forum but until he is let out he isn't going to be punished for disrespect, personal attacks or baseless accusations. If he was going to be punished for that he'd be permnently banned because he just can't stop himself.

quote:

---

And when they say "right up there, in your post" which anybody can see is not true, what do you do then?

---

You can ask them to quote the sentence (Randman would probably quote a sentence from a completely different post written by someone else). But really. that's an example of the sort of a falsehood so blatant that a liar wouldn't try it. Hence my conclusion that Randman's problem is not simple dishonesty.

I faced Randman arguing that an essay on talkorigins.org claimed that universal common descent was a fact when it explicitly said that universal common descent should not be considered a fact. And Randman continued blustering and arguing long after it was pointed out. I know what he's like. And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness, not dishonesty.

Either Randman and the rest know that their blatant untruths are falsehoods or they don't. I'm just suggesting the alternative that seems more likely to me. And mental illness at least carries no moral judgement.

That says a lot about your idea of "reasonable and rational" people. A genuinely "reasonable and rational" person would see that Randman was being irrational and unreasonable and refusing to accept the obvious truth.

If he had been insulting about it then he would certainly have been suspended. If he had stuck to saying that the statements were obvious untruths he would probably not have been suspended.

So actually following reason and the evidence is a sign of mental illness according to you.
Well that would certainly be convenient for you.

quote:

---

Very "reasonable and rational" position you take: agree with me or you are mentally ill.

---

That is an obvious misrepresentation, Ray. I stated that continued and repeated denial of an obvious objective truth was a sign of mental illness. Whereas you have claimed hat people who disagree with your opinion are mentally ill.

quote:

---

Nope.

​

You and Dan Carroll said anyone who does not agree with you are mentally ill.

---

I said no such thing.

quote:

---

Why have you lied?

​

Is it because that you know that the Mods will let you get away with it?

---

I have not lied, therefore there is no question of moderator involvement. Of course if I stated that you were lying - even though you falsely accuse me of lying - I would be warned and face suspension if I persisted. It is because the moderation policy is biased in favour of creationists that you do not receive the same treatment.

quote:

---

I would say there are four possible categories for denial of evidence - borrowed heavily from Dawkin's comment on evolution:

​

(1) lack of ability to understand the evidence (stupid),
(2) lack of {background\education\knowledge\etc} to understand the evidence (ignorant),
(3) malignant intentional deception (lying) - the creatortionista types on so many websites, and
(4) belief that the evidence is wrong (delusion).

​

Often there are mixes between these categories.

---

So lets consider the particular example I used earlier. Randman insists that an essay says one thing when it explictly says the oppoiste - and continues to do so after it has been pointed out.It's not stupidity. He can read.
It's not lack of education
It might be lying
It's not really covered by a belief that they evidence is wrong.I suspect that two factors are involved. Firstly many creationists don't seem to feel the need to know what they are talking about - so in the original instance I think that randman didn't do more than skim the essay (NJ clearly did this with the NYT article he wrongly attacked in the OP of "The Future of Marriage" thread). Then there comes an absolute stubborn refusal to admit to the existence of arguments that refute a claim that they have made. I consider this a form of delusion but it's not really a belief that the evidence is wrong - it's a refusal to admit that the evidence even exists.

quote:

---

You are left with two choices:

​

1. Admit

​

or

​

2. Lie some more and insult everyones intelligence.

​

You should admit, PaulK.

---

No, I have another alternative. I can tell the truth. I can trust that the readers here have the intelligence to see that your quote does not prove your claim. The quote doesn't say that I'm talking about simple disagreement - it doesn't say WHAT I consider evidence of mental illness at all. Because you cut it out. The mere fact that you chose to remove necessary context is enough for any intelligent reader to distrust your claim even if they choose not to investigate - why would you leave out the evidence needed to support your case ? The obvious answer is that the evidence refutes your case - and if they do follow the link to investigate that is exactly what they will find.If you bother to read Message 175 you can see that I provided a clear example of the sort of thing that I meant: If you read Message 172 - more context - you can see even more ( a short quote, read the whole thing) So the evidence establsihes that I did not refer to simple disagreement. I referred to blatant falsehoods - so blatant that I described them in Message 171 (more relevant context !) as So we just have to establish what is going in in your case. Does the fact that you deliberately removed the evidence mean that you know what you are doing and are lying ? Or is the insult to the intelligence of your readers so blatant that you couldn't possibly believe that you would get away with it.At this point - if you were a "reasonable and rational person" you would apologise and gracefully resign from the group. But then a "reasonable and rational" person wouldn't have got themselves into such an embarassing fix in the first place. So I suspect that you will just go on repeating your false accusation even after the clear disproof that I have provided.