Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

See Message 17 - oh, never mind, you meant that other one.Edited by Admin, : Wrong image.

Hi Kofh2u,I feel really torn because I can think of no nice way to say that no matter how wonderful might be the thoughts within your head, most everything you write is sheer nonsense, you understand almost nothing that anyone else writes, and you don't understand the most simple of concepts, most importantly of being on-topic.I think the underlying problem is one of comprehension, and even as I write this I realize that this same problem will keep you from understanding most of what I've written here, so you will likely interpret this as you do most moderation, as bias and censorship.I'm trying to think of simple analogies that might help you understand. How about you're like a bull in a china shop whose deafness and poor eyesight leaves him unaware of the carnage of china crashing to the floor.Anyway, much as we would like you to have a positive experience here at EvC Forum, your right to freely express yourself in the manner you've chosen ends at other people's right to constructive and intelligent discussion, which we attempt to make possible here through enforcement of the Forum Guidelines. Your inability to recognize when your contributions are off-topic, and your inability to move a discussion constructively forward by actively engaging with the evidence and arguments from other participants, and your inability to interpret moderation as anything more than bias and censorship, means that your ability to contribute here will meet with increasing restraints in the form of participation restrictions and suspensions.I'm very sorry, but this is the way it has to be in order for EvC Forum to best serve its goals of constructive and enlightening debate on topics related to the creation/evolution controversy.Edited by Admin, : Spelling.

No harm intended. Moderators are people too and can become frustrated after the nth time they request no discussion in the problem reporting thread, but there will always be new members.There's a little known feature of the site that permits acknowledgement without replying. At the bottom of each message is a link to the message replied to, and a list of links to the replies. At the bottom of this message you should see a section that looks like this: The "You have not yet responded" portion should be a link (at the bottom of the message, not in the example above). If you hover over it you should get a hoverbox that says: If you then click on the link the text will change to, "You have acknowledged this message."

Hi MindSpawn,You're complaining about a message from a month and a half ago? Are you *trying* to be a nuisance?Your behavior is raising doubts about your motives in everyone's mind, including my own. You can't use the Forum Guidelines as a shield to protect you from your own behavior.

Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines speaks of civility. If you haven't the civility to address the concerns that have been raised about the way you assess evidence and reach conclusions, how can you demand civility of those you seem to be purposefully trying to frustrate. The passive portion of passive-aggressive doesn't make it any less aggressive or obvious.I informed you of my concerns about the way you're conducting yourself, you refused to change anything, and now you want protection from the reactions people are having to your conduct? Really?

Hi Mindspawn,Sorry about not noticing the date, but the message is the same and my position hasn't changed. If you're not listening to my moderation and I'm not suspending you, then when others don't listen to my moderation how can I suspend them? Since so many are not listening to moderation my options are either to close the thread or just let things continue. I'm opting to keep the thread open.If you insist on being determinedly nonsensical while ignoring my attempts to help you frame your contributions more rationally, then there's very little I can do when people take note of how nonsensical you're being. If you change your mind about accepting moderation then let me know.

Regarding the key issues I've focused on with you, everyone else seems to understand the celestial teapot, they seem to understand scientific terminology, and they appear to have the ability to correctly interpret technical papers. For a recent example of your own problems in these areas there's your mistaken interpretation of the meaning of "correlate", a term everyone else seems to comprehend. As I've said at least a couple times before, you're not even close to suspension. and I don't understand why you keep raising the possibility. In this discussion with me you are exhibiting one of the qualities that others are finding so annoying and frustrating in that what I say doesn't appear to have any effect on you. It's as if I never said anything at all.Suspensions, in my experience, have a tendency to cause hard feelings, and this means they should be used judiciously and as sparingly as possible. My suggestions to you have been made in the hope of improving the quality of discussion and not because you were committing suspension-worthy offenses. Maybe it would help if you took a look at the Moderator Guidelines. They haven't been updated in a long while and our practices have evolved, but they're a generally good reflection of what moderators try to do here at EvC Forum. No one is picking on you. You recently raised moderation issues, so I responded. I also suggested that you take your complaints here, so thank you for doing that.As I've said before, a moderator is not a potted palm. Moderators bring their own knowledge and understanding to a discussion. I can't bring my moderation powers to bear upon people who have merely, in my estimation, accurately commented on the manner in which you're conducting yourself in defense of your position. The celestial teapot keeps coming up as fundamental to your misunderstanding of how one supports scientific positions with evidence, and you have yet to incorporate this into your thinking. Your belief that the absence of negative evidence represents positive evidence is a primary source of the scorn you keep complaining about.

When moderating in the science forums I try to distinguish between foundational philosophical statements ("The Bible says the Flood happened, and because the Bible is infallible and inerrant we therefore know that the Flood must have happened."), which I'm fine with, versus Bible-based arguments ("The Coconino was deposited in a marine environment because the Bible says so.") In the Why the Flood Never Happened thread I thought Faith kept her focus predominantly on the evidence and is doing a great job in that regard.But I do find large gray areas.As long as Faith is here, if Jaf returns and you feel so moved, maybe you could try to encourage him to take it down a few notches, else he'll be permanently suspended.

Moderators are responsible for enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Enforcement of these Forum Guidelines is our means of making discussion as productive as possible. Please do not make it difficult for moderators carrying out their responsibilities.Moderators are generally encouraged to give more leeway to creationists with regard to supporting their arguments with evidence and to keeping religion out of the science forums, the rationale being that their background usually has a much greater emphasis on faith and religion rather than evidence and science.This message is informational, and this thread is not for discussions. Please, no replies.

Without investigating I'm guessing that ICANT's restriction wasn't intended to be permanent. I'll remove any restrictions he has.

Hi Ed,As I said in my reply to your email, you appear to be giving as good as you get. Since none of the other moderators saw that reply I'll note that I suggested that you attempt to nudge discussion onto a more productive path over the next couple days, and if that doesn't work to then post a note to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. But instead of a couple days you waited a couple of hours.One other comment. A quick review of the Semiotic argument for ID thread reveals that most of your posts are very short, so one suggestion I can make is that discussion boards work best when a position is explained in some detail a number of times, and then defended a number of times. That's the only way its various aspects become understood. Your participation in that thread became very brief very quickly. I didn't see the more lengthy and repeated explanations that are usually associated with success. By lengthy I don't necessarily mean long, but certainly much longer than one to three sentences.One other suggestion I can make is that if you want to keep discussion civil that you avoid posts like this in Message 84: Independent of whether you're right or wrong about Taq's claim, responses like this are usually the harbingers of a breakdown in civility. I'm not saying you were the first or that you're to blame, but you *did* contribute to where the thread is now.Moderators are not here to untie the Gordian knot of who is to blame when a discussion goes bad. Rather, we're here to make discussion as productive as possible by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. But we're not magicians or clairvoyant, and moderating discussion boards can be like herding cats. Good moderation can help some discussions and not others, and the outcome usually depends more upon the participants than anything moderators can do.

Member 23235227106 has been suspended.

Looks like spam, but mike the wiz replied. Though he seemed bit suspicious, he otherwise gave it the benefit of the doubt, so I'll let it go unless someone can confirm those website's are hazardous. I won't be clicking on them myself.

If this is a question already asked and answered then just tell me what was Jar's question and what was your answer?

Hi Faith,Jar seems to be asking how denying a couple a wedding cake isn't a form of discrimination.Your answer seems to be that if denying a couple a wedding cake is a matter of personal conscience then it isn't discrimination. But Jar covered this. If denying access to the white water fountain is discrimination even if done out of personal conscience, then how is denying a couple a wedding cake not discrimination even if done out of personal conscience? I think this is the question Jar seeks an answer for.Jar can be cryptic at times, so in the interest of speeding things along I'm removing Jar's suspension so he can clarify if necessary. Please keep in mind, you and Jar, this isn't a discussion thread. In this thread you're just providing me information, not debating each other.