General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 10.0

I missed this first time around, but seeing it creates a good opportunity to make an important point. Rants like this are often cited as evidence that moderation here is unfair. What such criticism fails to note is that the rants are provoked. It's like criticizing drivers for yelling, blowing their horns and flipping the bird at someone who insists on walking down the middle of the highway everyday during rush hour, and can't be dissuaded from doing this by any among of haranguing.This is what discussions with Buzsaw feel like after a while. People cannot be blamed for reacting with frank frustration to insatiable ignorance and blithe obliviousness.I regret having to be so blunt, but the goal of maintaining civility does not mean we allow ourselves to be abused by those who have some bizarre interpretation of the rules. Returning to the highway analogy, someone can't walk down the middle of the highway and insist that no one criticize him because it's impolite. Clear communication requires that sheer idiocy be called sheer idiocy, and the police are responsible for persuading the individual to either begin using the sidewalk or, if he insists on using the highway, to get in a car, and if he refuses all suggestions then action must be taken so that traffic can flow.So continuing the analogy, when I told Buzsaw he could participate in a couple science threads it was equivalent to saying we'd tolerate a little middle-of-the-highway walking. And his brief return to participation was fine. What caused his discouragement and self-imposed exile was arguing with bystanders who had no reticence telling him what an idiot he was being. And he was. Moderators really can't come to the defense of someone so determined to not have a clue.Edited by Admin, : Spelling.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The problem is your concept of being provoked is just failing to agree with you or other evos. Or more accurately, biased evolutionist moderators fed up with having someone point out how they are wrong get angry and foster some bull-crap that their critic or critics don't have a clue and begin to verbally harass them so they can have some bogus reason to try to ban their critics, all the while falsely claiming their critics are unreasonable when it's patently obvious it's the other way around.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Actually that is patently false as others afterwards posted conclusions in agreement with the view of QM I discussed which is not surprising because I was just quoting quantum physicists themselves.Additionally, nearly every IDer and creationist, or actually all of them, that have visited this board that I know of are in full agreement on the nature of the biased moderation and general phoniness employed by evos here.

quote:

---

Actually that is patently false as others afterwards posted conclusions in agreement with the view of QM I discussed which is not surprising because I was just quoting quantum physicists themselves.

---

In the case I remember it was I who posted quotes from one of your favoured experts showing that he agreed with my view and disagreed with yours.

quote:

---

Additionally, nearly every IDer and creationist, or actually all of them, that have visited this board that I know of are in full agreement on the nature of the biased moderation and general phoniness employed by evos here.

---

Generally such claims result from the creationist or IDer breaking the rules and getting caught - or at least behaving badly and then behaving worse when it is pointed out that they are behaving badly. In Buz's recent case the primary issue from the admin side was his refusal to even consider vetting the websites he used to "support" his case more effectively. Although Buz admitted that it was necessary to filter out unreliable sources and it was obvious that he was not doing a good job at it he refused to even try to do better. Naturally this promoted a rebuke from Admin who - rightly - expects participants to make a good-faith effort to try to produce productive discussion. So where's the bias ? You tell me.

You do know that this was a joke, I didn't actually post that!

Speaking of walking down the middle of the highway...This discussion concerning AdminBuz/Buz isn't really an attempt to resolve a concern with an admin action which, as I understand it, is what this thread is for.Behavioral discussions tend to wipe out threads and since this discussion concerning Buz is not truly discussing a problem with a moderation procedure or action in Message 92 I closed the discussion on Buz and asked that it be taken to "Clarfying the Buzsaw Position" thread.I feel it is more appropriate and leaves this thread open for real concerns about moderation procedures.So again I ask that all those wishing to discuss or give farewells to AdminBuz/Buz please step to the sidewalk and let your fingers do the walking to the appropriate thread and continue your discussion there.Edited by AdminPD, : Delete closing sentenceEdited by AdminPD, : Typo

In Message 107 AdminQuetzal posted an Off Topic, do not reply notice.Not exactly sure how the message is off topic. Could you explain?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure. The entire discussion of the Michael Shermer presentation was off-topic for the thread. I already spoke to the person to whom you responded - s/he is going to open a new thread to discuss this. My suggestion would be to wait until that topic is proposed and promoted - then copy your response to the new thread.

LOLBut the only part of my post that dealt with Michael Shermer was to say that that subject was Off Topic.The bulk of the post dealt with the issue of Intelligent Design yet you marked the whole post as OT. Still don't understand what in Message 107 was Off Topic?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Apologies. I jumped the gun. Post is now re-opened to comment.Edited by AdminQuetzal, : No reason given.

No Problem. Thank you sir.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents rendered invisible. If you must view, use the peek button; but do not respond.

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents rendered invisible. If you must view, use the peek button; but do not respond.

Why are discussions about the reasons particular individuals or groups oppose abortion considered off topic when the OP states:

quote:

---

3) Does the argument put forward by opponents of abortion rely on defining such 'moments', 'points' or 'instantaneous boundaries' between that which should be considered human life and that which should not??

---

I would think that the discussions that were stated as off-topic were a means of defining that very argument.

to whom it may concern:I forgive SpongeLikeBattleAxe for his insults on Message 6 and turn the other cheek. He is new here and so this can be expected. I've asked him to take any such concerns as he expressed here.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.